Oak Brook makes offer to avoid red light cameras near Oakbrook Center mall (http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-brook/news/ct-dob-red-light-followup-tl-1201-20161129-story.html)
Well, this is interesting. One municipality versus another.
QuoteThe Illinois Department of Transportation recently issued Oakbrook Terrace a permit to install red light cameras at the intersection, and a move Oak Brook officials have opposed. The shopping mall is in Oak Brook but the intersection is in Oakbrook Terrace.
Oak Brook Village President Gopal Lalmalani said he would be happy to help with costs by having the Oak Brook Police Department handle traffic enforcement without red light cameras.
"If this really is about safety and not about generating additional revenue from red light violations, I don't see why Oakbrook Terrace wouldn't be in favor of us taking over enforcement there if they no longer can handle it," Lalmalani said. "This is a cash grab by them."
QuoteLalmalani said he and village staff are continuing to reach out to state legislators in hopes of having the red light cameras put on hold, while some concerns are addressed. He has called issuance of the red light camera permit "suspicious," and village manager Rick Ginex said "The circumstances are too strange."
The permit was issued Oct. 28, giving Oakbrook Terrace 180 days to complete installation for southbound traffic on Route 83 and for eastbound traffic on 22nd Street.
Oak Brook officials have issue with the fact that IDOT originally determined red light camera enforcement was not supported at the intersection.
A March 3 IDOT justification report review denied the camera request and noted that data for 2015-2017 could be submitted for another review. Then, a May 20 letter from IDOT stated approval was granted, based on video files dated November 2015, which "demonstrated a pattern of violations at the intersection."
Oak Brook officials also are upset because they said they never received a letter of notification from Oakbrook Terrace that was part of the installation submittal review process. Oak Brook recently received a copy of the letter, dated July 20, from IDOT.
Most interesting. Oak Brook has also threatened to put up very large warning signs should Oakbrook Terrace follow through and install the cameras.
Pretty suspicious that IDOT vetoed cameras on the Oak Brook side. In my experience, westbound to southbound left turners are by far the most egregious violators.
Quote from: Jericho That on November 30, 2016, 07:51:10 AM
Pretty suspicious that IDOT vetoed cameras on the Oak Brook side. In my experience, westbound to southbound left turners are by far the most egregious violators.
I'd say my limited experience says the same.
I approve of red light cameras as long as they are implemented properly. Don't get why people hate them, don't want a ticket, just stop at the light...it's that simple.
Quote from: Crash_It on December 29, 2016, 11:15:14 PM
I approve of red light cameras as long as they are implemented properly. Don't get why people hate them, don't want a ticket, just stop at the light...it's that simple.
The problems are that sometimes the yellow phase is intentionally too short, and sometimes the cameras malfunction. In addition, they don't actually improve safety.
Quote from: Crash_It on December 29, 2016, 11:15:14 PM
I approve of red light cameras as long as they are implemented properly. Don't get why people hate them, don't want a ticket, just stop at the light...it's that simple.
Welcome to the forums, although your first post isn't going to get you much endearment from the fellow forumers.
Please note that when the CEO of a large red-light camera corporation gets sentenced to 2.5 years in jail for "making millions of dollars on a product that abuses the people" as the judge said, it strongly indicated these cameras have not been properly implemented.
Problem is that besides what was listed above as problems they also catch people not fully stopping when turning right. It creates dangerous situations in which people fully stop and get rear ended. Around Lakemoor, IL we have the cameras on 120/12 intersection and it generates a couple million each year for the city. Did the city invest any of that money to put a proper turn lane from 120 to 12. Of course not, they built the new city hall with the money.
I hate red light cameras, but if your going to make money off of me driving, it better go back into our roads to improve them. Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: quickshade on December 30, 2016, 11:12:27 AM
Problem is that besides what was listed above as problems they also catch people not fully stopping when turning right. It creates dangerous situations in which people fully stop and get rear ended. Around Lakemoor, IL we have the cameras on 120/12 intersection and it generates a couple million each year for the city. Did the city invest any of that money to put a proper turn lane from 120 to 12. Of course not, they built the new city hall with the money.
I hate red light cameras, but if your going to make money off of me driving, it better go back into our roads to improve them. Just my 2 cents.
Illinois (along with all other states, to my knowledge) requires a full stop at a red light. Then you may proceed to make a right-hand turn if the conditions are safe.
If your concern is about rear-end collisions, then your beef should be with motorists who do not properly allow enough space and wind up hitting the car in front of them.
Red light camera opposition tends to verge on the hysterical (conspiracy theories about light timing manipulation, evil boogeyman cameras "causing" accidents).
What's so hard about stopping at a stop bar at a red light? I can gaurantee that nothing in Oak Brook Indiana is so important that it can't wait the 5 seconds it takes to stop and then make a safe right-hand turn.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 11:49:01 AM
Red light camera opposition tends to verge on the hysterical (conspiracy theories about light timing manipulation, evil boogeyman cameras "causing" accidents).
What's so hard about stopping at a stop bar at a red light? I can gaurantee that nothing in Oak Brook Indiana is so important that it can't wait the 5 seconds it takes to stop and then make a safe right-hand turn.
When proper engineering calls for a yellow light of a certain length based on signed and/or 85th percentile speeds, but the yellow light is shortened to catch people going thru the very beginning of a red light.
If you designed a curve for 30 mph on a 75 mph highway without any signage, similar results will occur.
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green. I've never driven in the Midwest so maybe people aren't as attentive to detail as they are elsewhere, but again I can't speak to that.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quick question...do you support coming to a complete stop (zero MPH) at a red light?
Quick question in return: what is the accuracy of that "0 MPH"? Typical scientific understanding of "0 MPH" notation is that speed is below 0.5 MPH rounding error.
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 12:21:06 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quick question...do you support coming to a complete stop (zero MPH) at a red light?
Quick question in return: what is the accuracy of that "0 MPH"? Typical scientific understanding of "0 MPH" notation is that speed is below 0.5 MPH rounding error.
Zero miles per hour means your car isn't moving.
I'm sure there are some books at your local high school about basic concepts of speed and motion if you need more explanation.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
Talking about standards.. There are also enforcement standards - which are not really higher than driving standards. Common problem with red light cameras is not that it requires full stop, but that entire thing is set up to produce revenue, not improve safety. So does a lot of manned enforcement, and there are plenty of well-documented cases of such approach....
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
The great thing about lights are you don't need to anticipate or be assured of anything. Go the posted speed limit and stop or go depending on the color of the light. Since you apparently don't have much confidence in your knowledge of motoring laws, I'll gladly send you my old driver's education material. For what it's worth, we did discuss the concept of stopping at red lights, and I believe everyone passed the section, although that was when we were in high school so it's been a while.
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
Talking about standards.. There are also enforcement standards - which are not really higher than driving standards. Common problem with red light cameras is not that it requires full stop, but that entire thing is set up to produce revenue, not improve safety. So does a lot of manned enforcement, and there are plenty of well-documented cases of such approach....
Earlier in the thread, I was told that forcing people to come to a stop at a red light was dangerous.
DC is replete with red light cams but I've never gotten a ticket. Of course, I come to a complete stop at the stop bar. I must be doing something wrong.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:25:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 12:21:06 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quick question...do you support coming to a complete stop (zero MPH) at a red light?
Quick question in return: what is the accuracy of that "0 MPH"? Typical scientific understanding of "0 MPH" notation is that speed is below 0.5 MPH rounding error.
Zero miles per hour means your car isn't moving.
I'm sure there are some books at your local high school about basic concepts of speed and motion if you need more explanation.
Thank you. I don't know if they told you about that in high school, but there will be detectable motion even if you shift to "park" and turn off ignition. You just need proper tools to measure that. There is still wind, motion associated with tires temperature and backlash in drivetrain just to name a few.
Which is not to say that stopping is not needed, I would prefer to steer discussion towards understanding the purpose of that requirement. 3, or better 5 seconds often brought up seem to indicate some people consider stopping is required for the sake of stopping and revenue generation, not for safety reasons...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:34:34 PM
Earlier in the thread, I was told that forcing people to come to a stop at a red light was dangerous.
DC is replete with red light cams but I've never gotten a ticket. Of course, I come to a complete stop at the stop bar. I must be doing something wrong.
If people made no mistakes, world would be a much better and safer place. Unfortunately we do make mistakes.
And you need to consider what is the ultimate goal here. Making people stop? Replace red light cameras with red light machine guns. I promise you, EVERYONE will stop once first few drivers are shot. Would it make our world a better place to be?
There are many instances when red light cameras actually increase crash rate - which means they defeat their own purpose...
Sounds like you need a "safe space" from the traffic rules..."the rulez are mean! they hurt my feeling I'm not perfect!"
Seriously, man up. Try to avoid mistakes, if you make a mistake pay the fine and move on.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:01:40 PM
Sounds like you need a "safe space" from the traffic rules..."the rulez are mean! they hurt my feeling I'm not perfect!"
Seriously, man up. Try to avoid mistakes, if you make a mistake pay the fine and move on.
This is not about safe space, this is about purpose of what is done.
Main purpose of most road regulations is to enable safe and reliable mode of transportation. And key question here is if read light cameras and 5 second stops recommended by authorities running those cameras actually improve safety. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant - including statements like "it is The Law! Obey it!"
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
The great thing about lights are you don't need to anticipate or be assured of anything. Go the posted speed limit and stop or go depending on the color of the light. Since you apparently don't have much confidence in your knowledge of motoring laws, I'll gladly send you my old driver's education material. For what it's worth, we did discuss the concept of stopping at red lights, and I believe everyone passed the section, although that was when we were in high school so it's been a while.
Can you please send me the driving records of everyone in your class to see if anyone has ever been cited for failing to stop/yield at a red light.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
As long as revenue from the camera - after payment of
fixed charge to service provider - is donated to an independent charity instead of being included in next year budget for municipality.
If safety is the major goal, that should be perfectly acceptable solution.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 01:16:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
The great thing about lights are you don't need to anticipate or be assured of anything. Go the posted speed limit and stop or go depending on the color of the light. Since you apparently don't have much confidence in your knowledge of motoring laws, I'll gladly send you my old driver's education material. For what it's worth, we did discuss the concept of stopping at red lights, and I believe everyone passed the section, although that was when we were in high school so it's been a while.
Can you please send me the driving records of everyone in your class to see if anyone has ever been cited for failing to stop/yield at a red light.
Sure what's your mailing address?
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
As long as revenue from the camera - after payment of fixed charge to service provider - is donated to an independent charity instead of being included in next year budget for municipality.
If safety is the major goal, that should be perfectly acceptable solution.
Good...so you support red-light cameras.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:21:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 01:16:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
The great thing about lights are you don't need to anticipate or be assured of anything. Go the posted speed limit and stop or go depending on the color of the light. Since you apparently don't have much confidence in your knowledge of motoring laws, I'll gladly send you my old driver's education material. For what it's worth, we did discuss the concept of stopping at red lights, and I believe everyone passed the section, although that was when we were in high school so it's been a while.
Can you please send me the driving records of everyone in your class to see if anyone has ever been cited for failing to stop/yield at a red light.
Sure what's your mailing address?
You can PM me the records.
And since I know your in denial of any issues with red light cameras, go back to what I said about a CEO of a company going to jail. It is extremely unlikely a CEO will go to jail. Corporations are set up that usually insulate a CEO or any particular officer of a company from wrongdoing. When they are caught doing something wrong, more often than not they are removed from the company, but no criminal charges are pressed against them.
Much can be said about politicians. Many are considered to be scum, with a high acceptance that they are probably doing something wrong, securing no-bid contracts with certain vendors, accepting gifts, etc.
For a CEO to be criminally charged and sent to prison is virtually unheard of. That's how bad the red light camera industry has gotten. Why they're even allowed to continue to operate anywhere...well, see the paragraph above.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:21:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
As long as revenue from the camera - after payment of fixed charge to service provider - is donated to an independent charity instead of being included in next year budget for municipality.
If safety is the major goal, that should be perfectly acceptable solution.
Good...so you support red-light cameras.
I support any measures which are aimed at improving safety, and improving in cost-efficient manner. Which means I don't support things per se, I support or don't support them in certain context.
I support traffic lights on arterials. I don't support traffic lights on either my street with estimated traffic of 50 vehicles/day, and I don't support them on nearby interstate with 50+k/day. Safety improvement would be insignificant compared to the cost of lights installation in first case, and non-existent in the second.
Unfortunately some things - like roundabouts and red light cameras - can be easily abused.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:21:00 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 01:16:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 12:20:54 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
You seem to have really low standards for motorists, based on your presumption that they're too unskilled to watch for a light being either red or yellow/green.
Based on your example, it seems that you assume that motorists anticipate if a light will be green, yellow, or red. That's very dangerous because drivers should be looking if a light is a certain color, not anticipating.
Again, I don't know why it's too much to ask drivers to come to a stop when a light is red. It's pretty elementary.
So if I see a light is green from 1,000 feet away, I don't need to anticipate the light will turn? I can be assured that when I reach the light in 20 seconds, the light will still be green?
And when a typical driving test is approximately 50 questions, along with a driving test that lasts approximately no more than 10 minutes, then yes, not only do I have really low standards, but so does everyone else. Having high standards would mean we wouldn't need signs for everything.
The great thing about lights are you don't need to anticipate or be assured of anything. Go the posted speed limit and stop or go depending on the color of the light. Since you apparently don't have much confidence in your knowledge of motoring laws, I'll gladly send you my old driver's education material. For what it's worth, we did discuss the concept of stopping at red lights, and I believe everyone passed the section, although that was when we were in high school so it's been a while.
Can you please send me the driving records of everyone in your class to see if anyone has ever been cited for failing to stop/yield at a red light.
Sure what's your mailing address?
You can PM me the records.
And since I know your in denial of any issues with red light cameras, go back to what I said about a CEO of a company going to jail. It is extremely unlikely a CEO will go to jail. Corporations are set up that usually insulate a CEO or any particular officer of a company from wrongdoing. When they are caught doing something wrong, more often than not they are removed from the company, but no criminal charges are pressed against them.
Much can be said about politicians. Many are considered to be scum, with a high acceptance that they are probably doing something wrong, securing no-bid contracts with certain vendors, accepting gifts, etc.
For a CEO to be criminally charged and sent to prison is virtually unheard of. That's how bad the red light camera industry has gotten. Why they're even allowed to continue to operate anywhere...well, see the paragraph above.
Let me guess...9/11 was an inside job by the CEOs of red light companies... :rolleyes:
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:21:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
As long as revenue from the camera - after payment of fixed charge to service provider - is donated to an independent charity instead of being included in next year budget for municipality.
If safety is the major goal, that should be perfectly acceptable solution.
Good...so you support red-light cameras.
I support any measures which are aimed at improving safety, and improving in cost-efficient manner. Which means I don't support things per se, I support or don't support them in certain context.
I support traffic lights on arterials. I don't support traffic lights on either my street with estimated traffic of 50 vehicles/day, and I don't support them on nearby interstate with 50+k/day. Safety improvement would be insignificant compared to the cost of lights installation in first case, and non-existent in the second.
Unfortunately some things - like roundabouts and red light cameras - can be easily abused.
But you do support coming to a complete stop at a red light, correct?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:32:38 PM
Let me guess...9/11 was an inside job by the CEOs of red light companies... :rolleyes:
CEOs also caused the mass extinction of dinosaurs and the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus. I believe the wrong number that dialed me recently from what sounded like an older lady by was probably a prank by a drunk CEO at a holiday party. And whenever my coffee doesn't taste right, I blame Dunkin Donut's CEO. Don't give me any crap about the fact I brewed my own coffee I bought at Sams Club on a Kerieg...I know DD's CEO was behind it.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:39:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:21:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
As long as revenue from the camera - after payment of fixed charge to service provider - is donated to an independent charity instead of being included in next year budget for municipality.
If safety is the major goal, that should be perfectly acceptable solution.
Good...so you support red-light cameras.
I support any measures which are aimed at improving safety, and improving in cost-efficient manner. Which means I don't support things per se, I support or don't support them in certain context.
I support traffic lights on arterials. I don't support traffic lights on either my street with estimated traffic of 50 vehicles/day, and I don't support them on nearby interstate with 50+k/day. Safety improvement would be insignificant compared to the cost of lights installation in first case, and non-existent in the second.
Unfortunately some things - like roundabouts and red light cameras - can be easily abused.
But you do support coming to a complete stop at a red light, correct?
Yes. I don't support cameras as a mechanism for enforcing that rule however. They have been shown to be abused (especially in Illinois) and don't lead to safety improvements.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 30, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:39:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:21:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
So it sounds like that the only hang up people here have is the method of enforcement.
Thus I propose a perfectly-calibrated, non-misleading red-light camera. All of you support it, right?
As long as revenue from the camera - after payment of fixed charge to service provider - is donated to an independent charity instead of being included in next year budget for municipality.
If safety is the major goal, that should be perfectly acceptable solution.
Good...so you support red-light cameras.
I support any measures which are aimed at improving safety, and improving in cost-efficient manner. Which means I don't support things per se, I support or don't support them in certain context.
I support traffic lights on arterials. I don't support traffic lights on either my street with estimated traffic of 50 vehicles/day, and I don't support them on nearby interstate with 50+k/day. Safety improvement would be insignificant compared to the cost of lights installation in first case, and non-existent in the second.
Unfortunately some things - like roundabouts and red light cameras - can be easily abused.
But you do support coming to a complete stop at a red light, correct?
Yes. I don't support cameras as a mechanism for enforcing that rule however. They have been shown to be abused (especially in Illinois) and don't lead to safety improvements.
There are countless examples of police corruption. Hence I presume that you don't support the use of police as an enforcement mechanism, correct?
Driving is a form of human interaction; as such, its enforcement should be done by humans actually present at the scene. I'm sure several of us have been in a situation where it was safer to run a red light than not (I have). A physical police officer can make that judgment call; a camera cannot.
Quote from: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Driving is a form of human interaction; as such, its enforcement should be done by humans actually present at the scene. I'm sure several of us have been in a situation where it was safer to run a red light than not (I have). A physical police officer can make that judgment call; a camera cannot.
Ah ha...so it's not about stuff like yellow light timing, or revenue, or evil CEOs.
As I figured, it comes down to the fact that people want to pick and choose which rules apply to themselves.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on December 30, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
Yes. I don't support cameras as a mechanism for enforcing that rule however. They have been shown to be abused (especially in Illinois) and don't lead to safety improvements.
There are countless examples of police corruption. Hence I presume that you don't support the use of police as an enforcement mechanism, correct?
No because that is hyperbolic ridiculousness. If there are vehicles that allow corruption to take place, and those vehicles are not useful to society (in this case it doesn't improve safety), then those vehicles should not be used.
Your claim that cops are okay but cameras aren't is arbitrary since both are imperfect. Just admit that you want to keep your precious "rolling stop"
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 03:10:39 PM
Your claim that cops are okay but cameras aren't is arbitrary since both are imperfect. Just admit that you want to keep your precious "rolling stop"
No. I don't care about my rolling stop. I care about municipalities using cameras as a revenue generating mechanism under the guise of a safety issue.
Why do you support them so vehemently?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:39:25 PM
But you do support coming to a complete stop at a red light, correct?
Once you can reasonably define "complete stop", we may talk about that. I don't see a need to set a parking brake (which is how "complete stop" defined for buses and airplanes) at each stop sign.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 03:10:39 PM
Your claim that cops are okay but cameras aren't is arbitrary since both are imperfect. Just admit that you want to keep your precious "rolling stop"
I do care about a rolling stop. If a real-live police officer decides that coming
almost but not quite to a complete stop before turning right at a red light when nobody is around, but a machine decides doing so constitutes a safety hazard and automatically issues a citation, then I have a fundamental problem with that. All sorts of traffic laws–speed limits, stop signs, lane use, headlight bulbs, you name it–have fuzzy edges, and that is a good thing. Police officers have the discretion to let things slide, give a warning, or issue a ticket; this is because they are best qualified to determine what is actually posing a hazard and what is not, and they are able to tell an honest mistake from an intentional dangerous maneuver. A machine cannot do these things, and that is my big beef with camera enforcement.
And, especially if there is a legitimate reason for running a red light that an actual human can see but a machine cannot (there's someone approaching the street with a gun, you're part of a funeral procession, a gravel truck is tailgating you and driving erratically, etc), I would be severely ticked off to receive a computer-generated citation and have to fight it.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 02:13:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 02:06:39 PM
Driving is a form of human interaction; as such, its enforcement should be done by humans actually present at the scene. I'm sure several of us have been in a situation where it was safer to run a red light than not (I have). A physical police officer can make that judgment call; a camera cannot.
Ah ha...so it's not about stuff like yellow light timing, or revenue, or evil CEOs.
As I figured, it comes down to the fact that people want to pick and choose which rules apply to themselves.
Maybe, maybe not. But I think it's at least as fair to say people want a live human being trained in law enforcement to have some say in which rules are enforced to what degree.
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 03:50:42 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:39:25 PM
But you do support coming to a complete stop at a red light, correct?
Once you can reasonably define "complete stop", we may talk about that. I don't see a need to set a parking brake (which is how "complete stop" defined for buses and airplanes) at each stop sign.
This is silly. A complete stop is when your wheels stop moving. A rolling stop is when they don't quite stop moving. Quit pretending common sense doesn't matter.
Quote from: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 07:43:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 30, 2016, 01:39:25 PM
But you do support coming to a complete stop at a red light, correct?
Once you can reasonably define "complete stop", we may talk about that. I don't see a need to set a parking brake (which is how "complete stop" defined for buses and airplanes) at each stop sign.
This is silly. A complete stop is when your wheels stop moving. A rolling stop is when they don't quite stop moving. Quit pretending common sense doesn't matter.
[/quote]
Common sense is long since dead in US, especially in courts. We're talking about tickets being issued - so please provide a legal definition of full stop, which would include possibility of gear backlash and tires cooldown.
Or we can talk safety and engineering common sense, and try to come up with some numbers - which are likely to be somewhat different from blanket statements.
In your state, it's defined as...
Quote from: New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, S 146. Stop.
... complete cessation from movement.
Nothing in there about parking brakes, gear backlash, tires cooldown, or any other nonsense blather.
Of course, actually having been provided a legal definition won't satisfy you either, and you'll probably just find some other silly bone to pick...
Quote from: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 08:12:22 PM
In your state, it's defined as...
Quote from: New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, S 146. Stop.
... complete cessation from movement.
Nothing in there about parking brakes, gear backlash, tires cooldown, or any other nonsense blather.
Of course, actually having been provided a legal definition won't satisfy you either, and you'll probably just find some other silly bone to pick...
I am not sure if they still teach that in elementary schools, but "complete cessation from movement" requires cooling things down to absolute zero... You don't have complete movement cessation, you have poor measurement instruments.
I don't think that car moving 1 foot over 3 second wait (which is another funny number people trying to make up, but ) would create a hazard. Of course, conflicting traffic would require longer wait - but 1 foot is not something that makes a difference with typical intersection spacing.
So realistic requirement would be "less than 0.3 fps", or "below 1/4 MPH" or so, and any stronger requirement has nothing to do with safety.
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 08:12:22 PM
In your state, it's defined as...
Quote from: New York Vehicle and Traffic Law, S 146. Stop.
... complete cessation from movement.
Nothing in there about parking brakes, gear backlash, tires cooldown, or any other nonsense blather.
Of course, actually having been provided a legal definition won't satisfy you either, and you'll probably just find some other silly bone to pick...
I am not sure if they still teach that in elementary schools, but "complete cessation from movement" requires cooling things down to absolute zero... You don't have complete movement cessation, you have poor measurement instruments.
I don't think that car moving 1 foot over 3 second wait (which is another funny number people trying to make up, but ) would create a hazard. Of course, conflicting traffic would require longer wait - but 1 foot is not something that makes a difference with typical intersection spacing.
So realistic requirement would be "less than 0.3 fps", or "below 1/4 MPH" or so, and any stronger requirement has nothing to do with safety.
I agree with your assertion that strong requirements in this regard have nothing to do with safety. But your refusal to accept a normal, commonsense, legal definition of "stop" is still ludicrous.
Quote from: kphoger on December 30, 2016, 10:02:47 PM
I agree with your assertion that strong requirements in this regard have nothing to do with safety. But your refusal to accept a normal, commonsense, legal definition of "stop" is still ludicrous.
Every complex problem has a simple, obvious, commonsense solution - which is unfortunately wrong one.
Remember, this definition is tied to red light cameras (and, just to remind you, this thread is about red light cameras at certain location) - where full stop starts to be defined as "car not visibly moving on consequent frames" - and time between frames started to drift towards double digit seconds. Not uncommon situation, where things drift far away from their original purpose and start to get abused...
Quote from: kalvado on December 30, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
I am not sure if they still teach that in elementary schools, but "complete cessation from movement" requires cooling things down to absolute zero...
"I was confused as well because instead of a full stop, I thought that they meant cooling down to absolute zero!"
Said nobody, ever.
Here's the problem:
0.1 mph is definitely safe. However, it is not completely stopped. What should the threshold for being "stopped" be?
0? 0.001? 0.1? 0.5? 2? 5? Getting exactly 0 is pretty much impossible, while 5 mph allows for slow rolling stops. The threshold needs to be set in between, but where exactly?
Quote from: 1 on December 31, 2016, 10:42:45 AM
Here's the problem:
0.1 mph is definitely safe. However, it is not completely stopped. What should the threshold for being "stopped" be?
0? 0.001? 0.1? 0.5? 2? 5? Getting exactly 0 is pretty much impossible, while 5 mph allows for slow rolling stops. The threshold needs to be set in between, but where exactly?
Matter of good judgement (non-existent). So an overly strong restriction is applied with assumption it is going to be somewhat violated, but that would still be within safety margin. That is where I am fine with the system. Then a even stronger requirement is applied on top - which I think is an overkill and Robin Hood taxation. And it is automated enforcement that makes it possible.
We had another barking competition in NY thread - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1487.2625 towards the end of the page - regarding official recommendation of 5 second stop to avoid red light camera ticket. Quoting myself:
Quote from: kalvado on December 19, 2016, 04:46:20 PM
5 seconds is absolutely meaningless number. I would say this is as close to prohibiting turn on red as it can get without actually prohibiting it.
Quote from: kalvado on December 31, 2016, 09:40:54 AM
Remember, this definition is tied to red light cameras (and, just to remind you, this thread is about red light cameras at certain location) - where full stop starts to be defined as "car not visibly moving on consequent frames"
Aha! This is a real issue. How, exactly, does a red-light camera determine a full stop has been made? A real-life traffic cop will usually consider a 0.3-mph rolling stop to be just as good as a full stop when turning right on red, especially if the driver holds that 0.3 mph for long enough to determine a clear path. By that last part, I mean slowing to almost but not quite a dead stop, taking five seconds to look for cross traffic while barely inching forward, then proceeding safely to complete a right turn. A real-life traffic cop will see that you're driving safely and for all intents and purposes stopped at the light; a camera, OTOH, will see nothing but movement and cite you for dangerous driving.
FYI (as it might relate), Illinois defines "stop" in exactly the same language as New York.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/1-199) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-199) Sec. 1-199. Stop.
... complete cessation from movement.
Quote from: kphoger on January 02, 2017, 11:41:51 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 31, 2016, 09:40:54 AM
Remember, this definition is tied to red light cameras (and, just to remind you, this thread is about red light cameras at certain location) - where full stop starts to be defined as "car not visibly moving on consequent frames"
Aha! This is a real issue. How, exactly, does a red-light camera determine a full stop has been made? A real-life traffic cop will usually consider a 0.3-mph rolling stop to be just as good as a full stop when turning right on red, especially if the driver holds that 0.3 mph for long enough to determine a clear path. By that last part, I mean slowing to almost but not quite a dead stop, taking five seconds to look for cross traffic while barely inching forward, then proceeding safely to complete a right turn. A real-life traffic cop will see that you're driving safely and for all intents and purposes stopped at the light; a camera, OTOH, will see nothing but movement and cite you for dangerous driving.
FYI (as it might relate), Illinois defines "stop" in exactly the same language as New York.
Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/1-199) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-199) Sec. 1-199. Stop.
... complete cessation from movement.
What about where you need to stop after the line to be able to see if you can make a safe light on red? The they removed near / on Woodfield Rd? was like that.
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 03, 2017, 04:30:38 PM
What about where you need to stop after the line to be able to see if you can make a safe light on red? The they removed near / on Woodfield Rd? was like that.
I'm pretty sure there is no legally approved "place to stop after the line." Legally, if you can't see well enough from behind the line to safely turn right, then you should not make the turn till your light turns green or the obstruction is no longer there. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: kphoger on January 05, 2017, 10:19:17 AM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on January 03, 2017, 04:30:38 PM
What about where you need to stop after the line to be able to see if you can make a safe light on red? The they removed near / on Woodfield Rd? was like that.
I'm pretty sure there is no legally approved "place to stop after the line." Legally, if you can't see well enough from behind the line to safely turn right, then you should not make the turn till your light turns green or the obstruction is no longer there. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I had an impression it was "stop before stop line, count to 3, roll forward to where you can see, count to 3.."
Since NY assumes crosswalk at each intersection, you need to stop before crosswalk - and if nobody is actually walking, then...
Really. The law says count to three?