I noticed that at NB John Young Parkway at Central Florida Parkway in Orlando that the left turn lanes are very long to accomodate the heavy amount of left turning traffic, however the left turn protected left does not allow enough green time to allow for every car in the dual left turn pocket. In fact when Orange County added the second left turn lane they cut out the long left turn protected left and shortened its green time drastically.
Now they installed the camera there and it appears to have shortened the green time even more. One morning I waited three light changes to make a left turn from NB JYP to WB Central Florida. Also I was in the left turn pocket toward the rear of the line just as it opens from the main road. It is almost as if people are heeding the cameras and not jumping signals anymore, so Orange County is being dirty and hoping that man's inner rage will take over and run the light so they can collect for the loss in money or even trying to generate new revenue. Basically they are "tempting" people to run the red lights with ridiculously short green times.
Of course no one will complain as we once stated here on the forum us road geeks seem to be the only ones to report signal problems. Some of us have pointed out malfunctions that go unnoticed by the signal owner's for years before they get fixed even in heavily traveled areas. It is that one email of phone call from us that gets their attention. Even though its not the intention of the county like I say, it sure has some merit and I am sure that some might be getting careless in getting the problem taking care of at that location.
Good chance of it. My uncle lives in Florida. He says they've put up some red light cameras in the Jacksonville area. He claims that they have even sped up the yellow light.
I think the speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. should be outlawed. Irresponsible government spending is the problem. Governments are only putting these up for increased revenue. If they spent the tax money wisely they receive, they wouldn't have to find ways of increasing their revenue.
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2014, 01:37:26 PM
Good chance of it. My uncle lives in Florida. He says they've put up some red light cameras in the Jacksonville area. He claims that they have even sped up the yellow light.
I think the speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. should be outlawed. Irresponsible government spending is the problem. Governments are only putting these up for increased revenue. If they spent the tax money wisely they receive, they wouldn't have to find ways of increasing their revenue.
Meh, I know at least 3 people (2 in my family) who started driving at reasonable speeds once MD started employing moveable speed cameras in our area. They might generate revenue that you think is unfair, but it made my neighborhood safer by slowing down at least 3 drivers. They work (for at least 3 drivers). Same with red light signals that sense if you've stopped before turning right on red: there are a few in DC, and ever since we discovered them, I've been stopping fully before turning right.
That said, it's completely unfair when they're tempting you to break the law (shortening the signal, etc). I've never experienced this myself, but I see how annoying it might be.
The problem is not so much that they generate revenue, but rather that the revenue generation has a tendency to encourage governments to behave unethically (shortening signal cycles, hyperenforcement of laws that don't materially affect safety like ticketing drivers for stopping beyond the stop line or not coming to a complete stop before completing a right turn on red, etc.)
There are a couple of lights like that here. I've learned where they are and I just go straight then make a U-turn and a right turn. Much quicker.
As many of us know, Orange County has terrible signal timing everywhere. Due to this, this situation could be an honest mistake. It's unfortunate how many people have to suffer due to incompetent persons being placed in important jobs such as traffic engineer.
I travel daily in Washtenaw County, Michigan, the home of the bullshit traffic light. While the flashing yellow arrow had made some inroads, there are still way too many fully-protected lefts into closed shopping centers and factories, onto dirt roads/side roads etc., and there is seldom enough green time for all traffic to clear. There may be twenty cars in the queue, but only five to ten will get through at any one time. There are several intersections where the signal is controlled by a largely non-functional loop. One particular intersection has the sensors wired backwards. You approach on a green and it turns red. Any way possible to snarl traffic is exploited. Traffic moving too smoothly/too fast? Stick a four-phase traffic signal there, even if it's only 100 feet past another mis-wired traffic light. Bonus points if they can program them opposite of each other.
I keep waiting for DC to install a red-light camera at the corner of 18th & L NW. That intersection is a weird one because you're going from a one-way street to a one-way street (either from northbound 18th making a right onto eastbound L, or from eastbound L making a left onto northbound 18th). In each case, it is illegal to turn unless a green arrow is on. In the case of the left turn, that's consistent with DC law because left on red is illegal in DC. In the case of the right turn, it's a bit odd. I don't remember whether the left-turn arrow is leading or lagging, but the right-turn arrow is a lagging signal–it comes on at the end of the cycle. So in other words, if you're going north on 18th, the green comes on for traffic going straight at the same time the "Walk" light comes on, but the right-turners have a red arrow. Then the "Don't Walk" light comes on and shortly after that the green arrow comes on. In theory, the slight delay after the "Don't Walk" light comes on allows pedestrians to clear the crosswalk so the way is clear for people turning right.
Naturally, you know as well as I do how it works in practice: The pedestrians continue to walk while the green arrow is on. I've forced my way through multiple times, and sometimes when my window has been open and one of them started yelling at me I replied with "YOU HAVE A 'DON'T WALK' SIGN." That, of course, usually leads to the highly intellectual "FUCK YOU!!!" coupled with giving the finger. The problem is, how the heck are you supposed to make the right turn legally if you're only allowed to turn on a green arrow but you can't make the turn because of all the pedestrians illegally flooding across the road? The only way to do it is to pull out and wait until the light turns, illegally finishing your turn after the light is red (you're not supposed to be in the "box" when the light goes red). I'm totally expecting DC to put up a red-light camera there at some point, which would be utterly unfair to people trying to make that right turn unless the District also engages in a major pedestrian crackdown there (which will never happen). I've been at that light several times when only one car has managed to turn and that driver did so illegally.
Part of the problem goes back to what's been mentioned in the other thread in "General Highway Talk" about how too many people exhibit the "me first, fuck you" attitude. In congested urban areas, if everyone (drivers, bikers, pedestrians) would play by the rules we'd have a lot fewer problems. Stay on the sidewalk (NOT out in the curb lane) when you have the "Don't Walk" sign so that drivers have the chance to make their turns and will be less likely to try to bull their way through the crosswalk on your "Walk" light. If you're driving, don't pull out unless you know you can make it not just through the "box," but also beyond the crosswalk on the other side. But no, all that matters to anyone is their own trip. Same thing happens with the idiots who stand right in front of the subway doors and obstruct people trying to get off the train. I'll say "Excuse me," but if I need to get off the train and you don't move, you may find yourself pushed out of the way.
I take it DC is one of those dum dum places where the law is "it is illegal to be in the intersection if you have a red" rather than "it is illegal to enter the intersection if you have a red". The latter seriously needs to be the standard nationwide. The former just makes it harder to drive and defeats the purpose of the all-red phase. Allowing drivers to finish a maneuver in the time immediately after the light goes red is an integral part of ensuring a minimum level of service regardless of traffic conditions.
Traffic would flow so much sooner if the "me first, f*** you" attitude would just die. In fact, I'd wager that rush hour would cease to exist in the majority of American cities.
Quote from: vdeane on August 01, 2014, 05:41:10 PM
I take it DC is one of those dum dum places where the law is "it is illegal to be in the intersection if you have a red" rather than "it is illegal to enter the intersection if you have a red". The latter seriously needs to be the standard nationwide. The former just makes it harder to drive and defeats the purpose of the all-red phase. Allowing drivers to finish a maneuver in the time immediately after the light goes red is an integral part of ensuring a minimum level of service regardless of traffic conditions.
Traffic would flow so much sooner if the "me first, f*** you" attitude would just die. In fact, I'd wager that rush hour would cease to exist in the majority of American cities.
One reason DC has that rule is most likely because most intersections in the city don't have an "all red" phase (the "Barnes Dance intersection" at 7th & H NW near Verizon Center being a notable, and obvious, exception). I can watch the pedestrian countdown timers and almost always when it hits "zero," the other street gets a yellow, and I then get a green right as the other street goes red (unless there's a leading green arrow, but arrow cycles are at the minority of intersections in the District except on a few major arteries). There's seldom the two- or three-second delay you get at most lights in the suburbs. To me, it's one of the unfortunate things about red-light running. If I can see the light for the other street, I shift into gear and am prepared to release the clutch as soon as, or sometimes before, I get a green. But almost invariably at least one driver will blow right through after the light goes red, making it unsafe to go immediately. (I REALLY like the British combined red-yellow cycle to tell you when it's going green.)
I'm sure the rule came about before the "Don't Block the Box" campaigns, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if one reason for maintaining the "illegal to be in the intersection if it's red" rule were combatting box-blocking.
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2014, 01:37:26 PM
I think the speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. should be outlawed. Irresponsible government spending is the problem. Governments are only putting these up for increased revenue. If they spent the tax money wisely they receive, they wouldn't have to find ways of increasing their revenue.
I
vigorously disagree. This should
not be about revenue, but about
traffic safety. Red light running
kills and
injures people, and automated enforcement reduces those violations.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2014, 11:52:08 PM
The problem is not so much that they generate revenue, but rather that the revenue generation has a tendency to encourage governments to behave unethically (shortening signal cycles, hyperenforcement of laws that don't materially affect safety like ticketing drivers for stopping beyond the stop line or not coming to a complete stop before completing a right turn on red, etc.)
I agree. One way to reduce some of that nonsense is to mandate that before any automated enforcement system can be set-up, the agency proposing to do so must have an independent and licensed P.E.
personally go to the site in question, check signal timings (especially clearance intervals), sightlines and other relevant factors (perhaps a review of crash statistics and "regular" police citations/summonses issued), and then sign-off (and stamp) his or her approval.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2014, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2014, 01:37:26 PM
I think the speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. should be outlawed. Irresponsible government spending is the problem. Governments are only putting these up for increased revenue. If they spent the tax money wisely they receive, they wouldn't have to find ways of increasing their revenue.
I vigorously disagree. This should not be about revenue, but about traffic safety. Red light running kills and injures people, and automated enforcement reduces those violations.
Red light cameras actually
increase accidents, because people brake quickly to avoid getting caught by the camera, and then the car behind them crashes into them.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2014, 10:17:35 PMautomated enforcement reduces those violations.
It does no such thing. The camera pushers would like you to believe that, but there is no independent verification of their claims, and no driver who isn't distracted or impaired is going to barge into an intersection where cross traffic is clearly visible. (Red-light cameras aren't going to prevent intersection collisions caused by distracted or impaired drivers anyhow.) And again, despite the claims of the camera pushers, the camera photos do not positively identify the driver nor do they provide a witness who can be cross-examined in court (which, lest we forget, is a constitutional right of the accused). At a properly designed intersection with correctly timed traffic signals or other controls, red-light cameras are unnecessary.
And, of course, there's the money factor. The camera pushers inevitably dangle that carrot before municipalities, too many of whom can't resist grabbing it, which leads to the upside-down conclusion that they need drivers to run the red. (If no one does, the municipality gets no money from the camera.) Thus, you have the infamous shortened yellow light, leading to increased collisions in intersections and/or on their approach roads...a perfect example of choosing money over safety. Another example is the camera pushers actively discouraging municipalities from synchronizing traffic signals, which would decrease air pollution, traffic congestion and fuel consumption...but would also decrease revenue from the cameras.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2014, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: US 41 on July 30, 2014, 01:37:26 PM
I think the speed cameras, red light cameras, etc. should be outlawed. Irresponsible government spending is the problem. Governments are only putting these up for increased revenue. If they spent the tax money wisely they receive, they wouldn't have to find ways of increasing their revenue.
I vigorously disagree. This should not be about revenue, but about traffic safety. Red light running kills and injures people, and automated enforcement reduces those violations.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2014, 11:52:08 PM
The problem is not so much that they generate revenue, but rather that the revenue generation has a tendency to encourage governments to behave unethically (shortening signal cycles, hyperenforcement of laws that don't materially affect safety like ticketing drivers for stopping beyond the stop line or not coming to a complete stop before completing a right turn on red, etc.)
I agree. One way to reduce some of that nonsense is to mandate that before any automated enforcement system can be set-up, the agency proposing to do so must have an independent and licensed P.E. personally go to the site in question, check signal timings (especially clearance intervals), sightlines and other relevant factors (perhaps a review of crash statistics and "regular" police citations/summonses issued), and then sign-off (and stamp) his or her approval.
How many people do you know that run red lights on purpose? Most of these tickets are going to people who are trying to "squeeze the yellow out of the light," or those that stop a few feet ahead of the stop line.
I like the idea of making the cameras revenue-neutral. That way we can focus on safety instead of money.
First, we ban private profiteers. Cities and counties have been running traffic enforcement for decades; I don't understand why they suddenly can't keep up with the technology. Then we prohibit the local authority from keeping any more of the penalty money than what's required to pay for the system. The city doesn't lose money, and any revenue beyond that level would go somewhere else, such as the state's general fund or a special fund for something traffic-related, like paying for trauma centers.
It's imperfect, because it still has government benefiting from lawbreakers, but it's improved because the benefit would go to someone other than the ones controlling the cameras and traffic signals.
Having a PE likely wouldn't do much good for two reasons:
1. State/local engineers are often tasked with rubber-stamping decisions made by the government for political reasons. It's the reason why we get all-way stops for traffic calming even though such use is technically illegal.
2. Municipalities are often contractually obligated to the camera company to have yellow phases that are too short.
I'm not convinced that red light cameras are needed. The mid-phase t-bone violations the camera industry likes to trot out are rare. Almost all red light violations are minor technicalities that don't hurt anyone (well, at least if there's an all-red phase, but good signals have that regardless). Forcing municipalities to adopt better traffic signalization practices would do much more to cut down on red light running than cameras ever can.
The cameras also have the effect that, in order to avoid them, you have to drive the way the insurance mafia wants you to (slow and as cautious as a 90 year old man wearing a hat).
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2014, 05:52:48 PM
One reason DC has that rule is most likely because most intersections in the city don't have an "all red" phase (the "Barnes Dance intersection" at 7th & H NW near Verizon Center being a notable, and obvious, exception).
Oh dear. There was an intersection like that in the town where I had my internship. It always struck me as unsafe.
What if red-light cameras were able to detect speeds, and under a certain speed, the camera wouldn't take a photo? This would prevent red-light tickets from turning right when you don't stop before the line. Of course, you still have the people slamming on the brakes when they see yellow and that still causes a collision, but at least those poor people turning right don't have to get a ticket just because they pulled past the stop line. I think the safest thing to do is to remove the cameras altogether, but I know municipalities are not likely to go for that option (though I am aware some have).
Quote from: jake on August 02, 2014, 01:40:16 PM
What if red-light cameras were able to detect speeds, and under a certain speed, the camera wouldn't take a photo?
They do, and this is where some of the problems enter with people getting tagged while still stopping behind the stop line.
The Chicago Tribune did a series of articles on Chicago's system: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12949.0
And has how they work in the city: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-met-how-red-light-appeals-work-htmlstory.html with a graphic detailing the system.
QuoteThe system, which until March was operated by Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., uses sensors embedded in the pavement near the intersection to predict possible violations. When cars pass over the sensors at a certain speed, it triggers a video camera. The city's new red light camera vendor -- Xerox State and Local Solutions Inc. -- is finalizing a citywide switch to an aboveground radar system.
Quote from: US 41 on August 02, 2014, 12:05:55 AM
How many people do you know that run red lights on purpose? Most of these tickets are going to people who are trying to "squeeze the yellow out of the light," or those that stop a few feet ahead of the stop line.
I saw one driver make a left turn against a red left arrow today mid-cycle, possible another one the other day (unless the stoplight at the intersection in question quickly cycled and I didn't see it since I saw it through my rear view mirror). The first one is definitely a case where the intersection does not need to be left on arrow only - only two opposing through lanes, no opposing left turn movement to block the view or worry about a yellow trap, and extremely good sight distance. There was also no opposing traffic at all for a long period, so the driver probably assumed the signal was broken.
There are at least two intersection in Wisconsin that may have a problem with right turns against a red light no matter where the light is in the cycle. One of these is WI 50 at County H in Pleasant Prairie or Kenosha. As is visible in Streetview, (https://www.google.com/maps?q=kenosha,+wi&hl=en&ll=42.566499,-87.914164&spn=0.003437,0.008256&sll=41.810783,-87.945731&sspn=0.000874,0.002064&t=m&hnear=Kenosha,+Kenosha+County,+Wisconsin&z=18&layer=c&cbll=42.566398,-87.914162&panoid=ObwmWRvO76UTlfyCCCGxWw&cbp=12,27.4,,0,6.9) for some reason the right turn lane gets a red ball when the adjoining through movement has a green ball.
^^ I've seen that for pedestrians, but that intersection has no pedestrian facilities so i have to call that an erroneous setup.
Jumping in a little late here...
Quote from: vdeaneI take it DC is one of those dum dum places where the law is "it is illegal to be in the intersection if you have a red" rather than "it is illegal to enter the intersection if you have a red". The latter seriously needs to be the standard nationwide. The former just makes it harder to drive and defeats the purpose of the all-red phase. Allowing drivers to finish a maneuver in the time immediately after the light goes red is an integral part of ensuring a minimum level of service regardless of traffic conditions.
The problem with the latter is that, in urban areas, it tends to create gridlock, as folks may legally enter the intersection on a green, then get stopped in the middle, and are still there well after the red.
Quote from: 1995hooOne reason DC has that rule is most likely because most intersections in the city don't have an "all red" phase (the "Barnes Dance intersection" at 7th & H NW near Verizon Center being a notable, and obvious, exception). I can watch the pedestrian countdown timers and almost always when it hits "zero," the other street gets a yellow, and I then get a green right as the other street goes red (unless there's a leading green arrow, but arrow cycles are at the minority of intersections in the District except on a few major arteries). There's seldom the two- or three-second delay you get at most lights in the suburbs.
For the most part, yes, but not fully. Especially in busier pedestrian areas, DDOT keeps an all-red for a few seconds but gives pedestrians the white "go" (otherwise known as a
pedestrian lead interval, amongst other names).
Quote from: 1Red light cameras actually increase accidents, because people brake quickly to avoid getting caught by the camera, and then the car behind them crashes into them.
Which simply points out the tailgating/inattention problem of most US drivers. If the driver behind is providing proper distance, he/she wouldn't crash into the car stopping for the red light.
I've found that having a red light camera at this intersection actually keeps drivers from yielding to fire apparatus that come down the ramp off I-395 going south onto S. Capitol St.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.879969,-77.008621&spn=0.00119,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.879866,-77.009144&panoid=5bL8O8lkpByzjrEE7j7V7A&cbp=12,347.58,,0,2.83
Any other intersection in the city, most people pull forward to clear a path when a fire truck is screaming up on their bumper. Several often take advantage of an emergency vehicle by going through along with us. But it's a known fact to fire companies in the area that, get caught behind cars at a red light here, you're waiting until the light turns green to get through, as everyone is afraid to pull past the stop line.
Quote from: wxfree on August 02, 2014, 12:21:36 AM
I like the idea of making the cameras revenue-neutral. That way we can focus on safety instead of money.
First, we ban private profiteers. Cities and counties have been running traffic enforcement for decades; I don't understand why they suddenly can't keep up with the technology. Then we prohibit the local authority from keeping any more of the penalty money than what's required to pay for the system. The city doesn't lose money, and any revenue beyond that level would go somewhere else, such as the state's general fund or a special fund for something traffic-related, like paying for trauma centers.
It's imperfect, because it still has government benefiting from lawbreakers, but it's improved because the benefit would go to someone other than the ones controlling the cameras and traffic signals.
I am fine with the above. Should not be about collecting revenue.
I would also add that all automated enforcement should be subject to approval by the state DOT, in addition to an independent P.E., and if either say NO, then that's the end of it.
Egregious examples of municipalities collecting money from automated enforcement include the District of Columbia, Baltimore City, Md., and Morningside, Md.
Quote from: andrewkbrown on August 03, 2014, 04:34:30 AM
I've found that having a red light camera at this intersection actually keeps drivers from yielding to fire apparatus that come down the ramp off I-395 going south onto S. Capitol St.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.879969,-77.008621&spn=0.00119,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.879866,-77.009144&panoid=5bL8O8lkpByzjrEE7j7V7A&cbp=12,347.58,,0,2.83
Any other intersection in the city, most people pull forward to clear a path when a fire truck is screaming up on their bumper. Several often take advantage of an emergency vehicle by going through along with us. But it's a known fact to fire companies in the area that, get caught behind cars at a red light here, you're waiting until the light turns green to get through, as everyone is afraid to pull past the stop line.
DC doesn't believe in emergency vehicle preemption? That intersection seems like a possible lawsuit waiting to happen when an emergency vehicle is delayed and either someone's building burns down or someone doesn't make it to a hospital in time.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2014, 12:05:00 PM
I would also add that all automated enforcement should be subject to approval by the state DOT, in addition to an independent P.E., and if either say NO, then that's the end of it.
Unfortunately, I can think of a few places where photo enforcement has gone into place with both the blessing of the state DOT (it's on a state route) and most likely a P.E. where other adjustments should have been put in place before the photo enforcement, such as upgrading the traffic signal to have more mast arm mounted heads, possibly retiming the light, and adding dilemma zone detection.
Quote from: cpzilliacus
Egregious examples of municipalities collecting money from automated enforcement include the District of Columbia, Baltimore City, Md., and Morningside, Md.
Chicago definitely belongs on that list, and probably many cities in Ohio.
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 03, 2014, 12:25:18 PM
DC doesn't believe in emergency vehicle preemption? That intersection seems like a possible lawsuit waiting to happen when an emergency vehicle is delayed and either someone's building burns down or someone doesn't make it to a hospital in time.
No.
But the "drive aggressively (and badly)" culture of driving in D.C. says that it is perfectly O.K. to run red lights by tailgating an emergency vehicle.
Here's a recent article in NJ's Star Ledger about a state assemblyman who has been very aggressive in getting rid of red light cameras in NJ. He's now pushing to have NJ not provide driver information to other states when they attempt to ticket a NJ driver for a red light or speed camera violation. Thus, I could blast through all the lights and speed cameras in DC with impunity (yes, they will still get me somehow, no matter what laws NJ passes...) There is more information in some of the related articles at the bottom of the page.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/senate_transportation_chairman_wants_to_hit_the_gas_on_anti-traffic_camera_bill_the_auditor.html#incart_m-rpt-1 (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/senate_transportation_chairman_wants_to_hit_the_gas_on_anti-traffic_camera_bill_the_auditor.html#incart_m-rpt-1)
This guy was already instrumental in getting rid of 3 notorious red light cameras in Brick, NJ that were known for nailing tons of people with right on red. I would just sit there myself, and turn right only on green.
Among the problems with the law as noted by others is that it would invite retaliation against NJ drivers, cause other states to deny information to NJ for their own driver's infractions and would probably be relatively easy to get around anyway (they'll still get the driver information, even if NJ doesn't give it directly to the camera companies).
I'm all for dumping signal and speed cameras, but a bill targeting other states is not the way to go about it.
Quote from: jake on August 02, 2014, 01:40:16 PM
What if red-light cameras were able to detect speeds, and under a certain speed, the camera wouldn't take a photo?
You'd still be getting the people who misjudged the yellow or were in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" point (where a vehicle traveling at the speed limit had a green, and in order to stop before the light went red would have to slam on the brakes so hard they leave tire skid marks; I know of a few such intersections in upstate NY).
Quote from: froggie on August 02, 2014, 10:46:50 PM
The problem with the latter is that, in urban areas, it tends to create gridlock, as folks may legally enter the intersection on a green, then get stopped in the middle, and are still there well after the red.
Doesn't seem to be a problem in upstate NY. Of course, you're not supposed to just sit in the red; you're supposed to complete your movement ASAP, which is usually in the first couple seconds after the light changes. Most urban signals here are simple two-phase timed things where it's very easy to do this in the all-red phase.
Quote from: US 41 on August 02, 2014, 12:05:55 AM
How many people do you know that run red lights on purpose? Most of these tickets are going to people who are trying to "squeeze the yellow out of the light," or those that stop a few feet ahead of the stop line.
I see it frequently at the pedestrian crossing lights around here (as far as I know, Norman does not use traffic cameras). A lot of people simply ignore those lights, because who's going to win: an SUV, or a pedestrian?
Quote from: algorerhythms on August 03, 2014, 06:30:34 PM
Quote from: US 41 on August 02, 2014, 12:05:55 AM
How many people do you know that run red lights on purpose? Most of these tickets are going to people who are trying to "squeeze the yellow out of the light," or those that stop a few feet ahead of the stop line.
I see it frequently at the pedestrian crossing lights around here (as far as I know, Norman does not use traffic cameras). A lot of people simply ignore those lights, because who's going to win: an SUV, or a pedestrian?
Signals like these?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcgFOZi4.png&hash=aa9a416e54f95b3c0f29843f5a685e35bdbfb0ba)
This is one of the signals: Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.203853,-97.44624,3a,75y,80.63h,76.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seYvW0CK8Xjs10x206a2Qfg!2e0)
Quote from: algorerhythms on August 03, 2014, 07:46:24 PM
This is one of the signals: Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.203853,-97.44624,3a,75y,80.63h,76.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seYvW0CK8Xjs10x206a2Qfg!2e0)
I find it very strange that people are willfully running red lights . . . perhaps it's just that my part of the country is overly courteous? Lol.
Quote from: algorerhythms on August 03, 2014, 07:46:24 PM
This is one of the signals: Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.203853,-97.44624,3a,75y,80.63h,76.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seYvW0CK8Xjs10x206a2Qfg!2e0)
I couldn't see the signals until I looked closely. Maybe that's why people are running them - suburban area without overhead signals. Keeping them off to the sides of the road is almost a guaranteed recipe for people running them unintentionally.
Quote from: algorerhythms on August 03, 2014, 07:46:24 PM
This is one of the signals: Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.203853,-97.44624,3a,75y,80.63h,76.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seYvW0CK8Xjs10x206a2Qfg!2e0)
I panned to the next set of those signals and it said left turn allowed on red.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2014, 09:40:30 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on August 03, 2014, 07:46:24 PM
This is one of the signals: Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.203853,-97.44624,3a,75y,80.63h,76.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seYvW0CK8Xjs10x206a2Qfg!2e0)
I couldn't see the signals until I looked closely. Maybe that's why people are running them - suburban area without overhead signals. Keeping them off to the sides of the road is almost a guaranteed recipe for people running them unintentionally.
Not necessarily. If they set the stop lines back, filled in the center median with concrete, put some railings along the edge of the road, installed a bike box, and then inserted the signals along the side of the road of which you approach, with side-facing signals (a la metered freeway entrances), I have a feeling the side-mounted signals would work fine. Let's be honest, side-mounted signals look miles better. I've always loved them, but they work best when closer to the stop line. Most areas that I'm familiar with that use side-mounted signals (like DC) set them very far away, where overhead signals work far better.
Quote from: Big John on August 03, 2014, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on August 03, 2014, 07:46:24 PM
This is one of the signals: Street View image (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.203853,-97.44624,3a,75y,80.63h,76.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seYvW0CK8Xjs10x206a2Qfg!2e0)
I panned to the next set of those signals and it said left turn allowed on red.
Lefts on red into Van Vleet Oval were allowed, since the pedestrian crossing is on the far side of the intersection. Rights on red from westbound Lindsey Street weren't allowed. Since that picture was taken, Van Vleet Oval has been closed and is being converted into a pedestrian walkway.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 30, 2014, 11:52:08 PM
The problem is not so much that they generate revenue, but rather that the revenue generation has a tendency to encourage governments to behave unethically (shortening signal cycles, hyperenforcement of laws that don't materially affect safety like ticketing drivers for stopping beyond the stop line or not coming to a complete stop before completing a right turn on red, etc.)
Governments don't need encouragement to act unethically. They do a good job of it on their own.
I've seen quite a few people blatantly ignoring HAWK signals, not even slowing down when they're showing a steady red.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 04, 2014, 07:50:48 AM
I've seen quite a few people blatantly ignoring HAWK signals, not even slowing down when they're showing a steady red.
Without training and recognition, are they aware of what they should do at a HAWK signal?
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2014, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 04, 2014, 07:50:48 AM
I've seen quite a few people blatantly ignoring HAWK signals, not even slowing down when they're showing a steady red.
Without training and recognition, are they aware of what they should do at a HAWK signal?
If there's a sign saying "STOP ON [red circle icon]" and the light is red, what else do you need?
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 04, 2014, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2014, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 04, 2014, 07:50:48 AM
I've seen quite a few people blatantly ignoring HAWK signals, not even slowing down when they're showing a steady red.
Without training and recognition, are they aware of what they should do at a HAWK signal?
If there's a sign saying "STOP ON [red circle icon]" and the light is red, what else do you need?
People ignore "no turn on red" signs all the time; who's to say they'll read this one?
I don't think the HAWK signal is as intuitive as the FYA, but I think with proper media coverage, that 97% compliance could increase dramatically.
Perhaps we could do a public information film, like they used to do in the UK:
So I just looked up HAWK signals. Why would we use these over regular traffic signals?
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 04, 2014, 10:19:24 PM
So I just looked up HAWK signals. Why would we use these over regular traffic signals?
just to think up something new - otherwise boredom sets in...
HAWK signal has one advantage over a regular traffic signal: before the end of the ped cycle, the solid red goes to a flashing red, at which point waiting cars can proceed if there are no pedestrians present.
It sounds like it would create a lot of confusion for a relatively minimal advantage. If I came up on it while it was in the alternating red light phase, I'd be looking for a train...
As with anything new, there is going to backlash and questioning. It will take time and effort, but I think given a few years, it will be discovered that the minute advantage HAWK signals have over standard signals will allow the new signal to reach a wider audience and increase nationwide compliance.
That said, why don't standard signals, used for pedestrian crossings, go into a flashing red phase after the solid red phase, and then back to green? Seems like it would get the job done the same. Sort of like the Pelican crossings in the UK with a flashing yellow interval at the end of the solid red phase (two posts in a row where I referenced jolly old England :biggrin:).
QuoteThat said, why don't standard signals, used for pedestrian crossings, go into a flashing red phase after the solid red phase, and then back to green? Seems like it would get the job done the same.
MUTCD doesn't allow that...hence why the HAWK was developed as a work-around.
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2014, 11:35:43 AM
QuoteThat said, why don't standard signals, used for pedestrian crossings, go into a flashing red phase after the solid red phase, and then back to green? Seems like it would get the job done the same.
MUTCD doesn't allow that...hence why the HAWK was developed as a work-around.
Is it inanely difficult for the FHWA to remove articles from the MUTCD, especially if there's proof that the MUTCD's "rule" is unnecessary?
Either way, the original question was whether people should be expected to stop at a red HAWK signal when they haven't seen one before. Here's a picture of one near where I live (not the one I mentioned earlier in this thread, but the sign and the lights look the same). If you approached this and saw a steady red light, why would you think it was OK not to stop?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welovedc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F11%2Fhawk-signal.png&hash=9c0b01db2eff41b68a0171d24b6672c1a56b8e49)
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 05, 2014, 02:17:51 PM
Either way, the original question was whether people should be expected to stop at a red HAWK signal when they haven't seen one before. Here's a picture of one near where I live (not the one I mentioned earlier in this thread, but the sign and the lights look the same). If you approached this and saw a steady red light, why would you think it was OK not to stop?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welovedc.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F11%2Fhawk-signal.png&hash=9c0b01db2eff41b68a0171d24b6672c1a56b8e49)
but you are supposed to stop on the steady red. You're allowed to proceed during the flashing red if pedestrians aren't present in the crosswalk.
Right, but what I said was that I've routinely seen people failing even to slow down when they approach a HAWK signal displaying a steady red. Brandon then replied, "Without training and recognition, are they aware of what they should do at a HAWK signal?" My point was that you don't need any special "training" to recognize that when the sign says "Stop on Red" or "Stop on [red circle icon]," and you see a steady red light, you have to stop. Do you disagree with any of that?
I'm not sure where anyone other than new drivers will get "training" as to any new traffic-control device, whether a HAWK or anything else, because US states do not re-test anyone with the exception of some states that make you re-take the knowledge test if you got too many moving violations since your last license renewal (in Virginia, two moving violations will cause you to have to re-take the test).
I don't disagree with that, and I'm sorry I missed the point you were making.
I think the problem with the HAWK is that it is normally dark. If you drive through (and in turn, ignore) a dark signal 99 times, you might not even notice that it's red that 100th time. It's the same thing that happens when a new STOP sign is installed - regular users will blow right through it, because wait where did that come from???
I think the problem will be with the alternating flashing red signals following the steady reds. Most drivers I would think would associate alternating flashing reds with railroad crossings, or even school buses, which mean the same as a solid red. A single flashing red would be the same as a stop sign, which is the intent here. I think many drivers are just going to stay put when they get the alternating reds for these signals. It seems that it would be far better if the dual reds flashed together, rather than alternate. Or better yet, just use a regular traffic signal and avoid all this in the first place.
Quote from: spooky on August 05, 2014, 03:18:28 PM
I think the problem with the HAWK is that it is normally dark.
since I'm in a place where the HAWK does not exist, to me it is unfamiliar. my reaction to a dark, unfamiliar signal? I will assume "the odd little traffic light is out" and treat it as an all-way stop!
Even the acronym is confusing.
High-intensity Activated cross-WalK
How bout...
Highly Awkward cross-WalK
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 05, 2014, 03:22:58 PM
Or better yet, just use a regular traffic signal and avoid all this in the first place.
Most places where I've seen a HAWK installed would not meet MUTCD warrants for signal installation.
Why not just HACK?
High-intensity Activated Cross-walK
"Who did that HACK job?" would become a legitimate question in the office.
Quote from: andrewkbrown on August 03, 2014, 04:34:30 AM
I've found that having a red light camera at this intersection actually keeps drivers from yielding to fire apparatus that come down the ramp off I-395 going south onto S. Capitol St.
https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.879969,-77.008621&spn=0.00119,0.002642&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.879866,-77.009144&panoid=5bL8O8lkpByzjrEE7j7V7A&cbp=12,347.58,,0,2.83
Any other intersection in the city, most people pull forward to clear a path when a fire truck is screaming up on their bumper. Several often take advantage of an emergency vehicle by going through along with us. But it's a known fact to fire companies in the area that, get caught behind cars at a red light here, you're waiting until the light turns green to get through, as everyone is afraid to pull past the stop line.
Another example of unintended consequences, courtesy of the DC government.
Quote from: spooky on August 05, 2014, 04:51:36 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 05, 2014, 03:22:58 PM
Or better yet, just use a regular traffic signal and avoid all this in the first place.
Most places where I've seen a HAWK installed would not meet MUTCD warrants for signal installation.
Realize that there are several different warrants for a signal, one being based on number of pedestrian crossings versus vehicle volumes.
Generally speaking (i.e. in jurisdictions that religiously follow the warrant analyses), a location has to meet minimums of at least one warrant in order for a signal to be installed.