AP via WTOP Radio: Traffic deaths up in cities that turn off red-light cameras (http://wtop.com/government/2016/07/traffic-deaths-up-in-cities-that-turn-off-red-light-cameras/)
QuoteRed-light cameras are widely hated, but a new study says getting rid of them can have fatal consequences.
QuoteTraffic deaths from red-light-running crashes go up by nearly a third after cities turn off cameras designed to catch motorists in the act, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute is funded by auto insurers.
QuoteWhile cities continue to add cameras at intersections with traffic signals, at least 158 communities have ended their red-light camera programs in the past five years, the study said.
QuoteResearchers compared trends in annual crash rates in 14 cities that had ended their camera programs with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their camera programs.
QuoteThey found that, after adjusting for other factors, red-light-running crashes went up 30 percent.
Quote
"We are really going to screw with the data to show as best we can why red light camera companies are just made up of poor people trying to make an honest living", says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
QuoteWhile 158 communities have ended their red light camera program in the past 5 years, we searched long and hard and found 14 where the crash rate went up, which will be used to prove that life as we know it will be extinct within months if this trend continues
QuoteWe would provide you with the data, but the truck carrying the information went thru a red light and was broadsided by an environmentally conscious bicyclist. The truck erupted into flames, and we lost all the data.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2016, 03:10:55 PM
AP via WTOP Radio: Traffic deaths up in cities that turn off red-light cameras (http://wtop.com/government/2016/07/traffic-deaths-up-in-cities-that-turn-off-red-light-cameras/)
QuoteRed-light cameras are widely hated, but a new study says getting rid of them can have fatal consequences.
QuoteTraffic deaths from red-light-running crashes go up by nearly a third after cities turn off cameras designed to catch motorists in the act, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute is funded by auto insurers.
QuoteWhile cities continue to add cameras at intersections with traffic signals, at least 158 communities have ended their red-light camera programs in the past five years, the study said.
QuoteResearchers compared trends in annual crash rates in 14 cities that had ended their camera programs with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their camera programs.
QuoteThey found that, after adjusting for other factors, red-light-running crashes went up 30 percent.
And again, a "news" organization reproduces someone's press release without bothering to find out the real facts.
IIHS is a long-time shill for the insurance industry, and never met a scheme to bilk motorists out of their money that they didn't like.
They aren't even particularly subtle: "...after adjusting for other factors..." Yeah, right.
We have a state rep in TN that went around and told folks that if they receive a red light ticket in Tennessee that was enforced by an unmanned camera to just rip it up. There is no practical way in TN to actually enforce the non payment. The municaplity is barred from have a ding put on the credit score. The municaplity would actualy have to take you to civil court and sue you for it.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 28, 2016, 04:00:04 PM
We have a state rep in TN that went around and told folks that if they receive a red light ticket in Tennessee that was enforced by an unmanned camera to just rip it up. There is no practical way in TN to actually enforce the non payment. The municaplity is barred from have a ding put on the credit score. The municaplity would actualy have to take you to civil court and sue you for it.
Tennessee's legislature just ought to sack up and ban those God-awful revenue grab mechanisms.
In between segments kissing Hillary's rather amble backside and bashing Trump, the CBS Evening News tonight ran this story. Tucked into the tail end of it (no pun intended whatsoever) was a mention in passing that rear-end collisions seem to increase in communities where red light cameras are used.
Unless all of the cameras and signage were removed from every intersection after they were "turned-off," there's no possible way to correlate the accidents with them.
I smell bullsh!t everywhere.
Didn't Mississippi outlaw red light cameras state-wide? If so, then they probably could've drawn their study from the places in Mississippi that used to have red light cameras...
Massachusetts de facto bans them, since state law here is that a citation must be handed directly to the vehicle operator by a police officer at the time of the alleged violation, with the one exception made for automated toll (E-ZPass) violations. There were several attempts over the years to legislate "no-fix" (i.e., mailed) citations, but they all failed.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 30, 2016, 10:35:03 PM
Massachusetts de facto bans them, since state law here is that a citation must be handed directly to the vehicle operator by a police officer at the time of the alleged violation, with the one exception made for automated toll (E-ZPass) violations. There were several attempts over the years to legislate "no-fix" (i.e., mailed) citations, but they all failed.
This is why speed cameras are banned with 2 exceptions in New York (school zones and E-ZPass lanes). The latter can't actually issue tickets. With both speed and red light cameras, fines are fixed and significantly lower than if someone is pulled over for the same offense.
Fun fact: if pulled over for speeding in New York, the cop running radar has to be the one writing the ticket, else it can be fought in court and thrown out. Again, this is an extension of the above.
NJ had a 5 year trial for their cameras, after which time the cameras were shut off and a report was to be issued. 19 months later, and still no report. Camera companies, hoping for a quick report on their favor, had started giving up and have removed the equipment at some intersections. At others, the equipment had been hit and knocked over. It would lay on the side of the road for months before finally being removed.
Quote from: SidS1045 on July 30, 2016, 10:35:03 PM
Massachusetts de facto bans them, since state law here is that a citation must be handed directly to the vehicle operator by a police officer at the time of the alleged violation, with the one exception made for automated toll (E-ZPass) violations. There were several attempts over the years to legislate "no-fix" (i.e., mailed) citations, but they all failed.
Nevada bans red light cameras as well, as well as other traffic enforcement cameras. State law (NRS 484A.600) prohibits governmental agencies from using photo or video devices to gather evidence to be used for issuance of traffic violations, unless such device is held in the hand or installed in a vehicle/facility of a law enforcement agency.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 28, 2016, 04:00:04 PM
We have a state rep in TN that went around and told folks that if they receive a red light ticket in Tennessee that was enforced by an unmanned camera to just rip it up. There is no practical way in TN to actually enforce the non payment. The municaplity is barred from have a ding put on the credit score. The municaplity would actualy have to take you to civil court and sue you for it.
Have you ever been through Union City, TN? That is a speed and red light camera nightmare.
Wow.
I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.
Quote from: Tom958 on July 31, 2016, 09:46:21 AM
Wow.
I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.
They don't save lives. This study was intentionally biased to begin with.
Quote from: Tom958 on July 31, 2016, 09:46:21 AM
Wow.
I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.
Because red light cameras in some areas have been shown to sometimes cause more rear end accidents, and the vast majority of tickets are within a second of the light changing, so the "running" of the light had no safety issue at all. Its also been shown not to be the most effective way to save lives by a long shot. It has nothing to do with the fact that the companies operating them are skimming most of the money.
Quote from: Tom958 on July 31, 2016, 09:46:21 AM
Wow.
I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.
Lots of things have the potential to save lives. That doesn't mean that we should do all of those things.
Do these "reporters" have any idea what they are saying?
Okay, fine, people will complain about a 12 year old's opinions, but I'll be nice and share my thoughts.
Red light cameras are a scam. Whatever people say that they make places "safer" is simply not true. They're just a way to make people hate traffic enforcement (and strategies) even more. That's probably the most astute way I can put it. I'm okay with red lights, if they're used the right way (such as transitioning to a green wave to a stop light so side streets don't become parking lots). But if people say that there should be a traffic light smack dab in some ridiculous place, and there should be enforcement with red light cameras, that is a colossal no-no. It doesn't help with safety, it's just to meet dumb status quotas thanks to dumb people. That's not even a convincing argument.
It'll only stop if we get better driver's education. It's been a huge problem in this country, just because drivers have no idea of what a car does and how to use it.
Controversial opinion time:
In a large city's downtown, I think every intersection should have cameras and enforcement. Box blocking is a huge issue, red light-running happens and kills people (especially when you have cycle lanes that cross over with turning traffic), bus and HOV lanes are routinely violated, taxis/Ubers use just about every curb to stop at..
Honestly, the penalties for these kinds of behaviors need to be harsher. Think suspensions, not just fines that can be blown off.
Drivers haven't been properly educated, so they need to learn through enforcement.
The problem with draconian enforcement is when people quickly realize it exists they overcompensate and cause other problems. For example, there are a few intersections on Long Island that are frequently the source of traffic congestion for no other reason than because drivers know there is a camera on a hair trigger there and approach the intersection real slowly with their foot ready to slam their brakes the instant the light turns yellow.
Humans are pretty much guaranteed to behave irrationally if you instill fear in them. They will become highly focused on avoiding the thing they fear to the point of being oblivious to other problems. This strategy is, therefore, ultimately counterproductive - drivers need to feel comfortable and confident behind the wheel or they will not drive safely.
Tell people "your license will be suspended if we catch you blocking the box" and I guarantee you you will start to see a lot of the opposite problem: drivers getting paranoid and approaching intersections super timidly to make extra sure that there is more than enough space for them on the other side.
You can't hammer antisocial behaviors out of existence by dishing out harsh disproportionate penalties. It never works and there are always unintended consequences.
I'd love it if drivers were a bit more timid when driving around people in a dense city. That's what they should be doing, since the environment will require a lot more attention than what they currently give. A timid driver won't try and creep forward into the crosswalk, blocking it and forcing mobs of pedestrians to play chicken with oncoming traffic, nor would they try to block the bike lane when it crosses over.
Of course, in some areas, the cameras did produce improved safety. Take Columbus, OH. Before the red light cameras went in, there was a rash of injury crashes, mostly T-bones from people not stopping at red lights. Cameras went in and, while rear-end collisions did increase, the increase was PDO crashes and injury crashes went way down. Overall, a net improvement for safety.
I think all red light camera intersections should have the pedestrian countdown signals (assuming this isn't mandatory already) to help drivers know when the light will change.
I have no problems with them, but sometimes I feel the yellow cycle is simply not long enough. One example for me is Fairway Rd at the Hwy 8 EB ramps in Kitchener. (https://goo.gl/maps/1KVn4whMPKR2) Along Fairway Rd, the intersection is so long, and the yellow too short, that people run the red constantly. They would be rich if they ever put a red-light camera there without lengthening the yellow.
Quote from: Bruce on July 31, 2016, 11:59:32 PM
I'd love it if drivers were a bit more timid when driving around people in a dense city. That's what they should be doing, since the environment will require a lot more attention than what they currently give. A timid driver won't try and creep forward into the crosswalk, blocking it and forcing mobs of pedestrians to play chicken with oncoming traffic, nor would they try to block the bike lane when it crosses over.
No, but a timid driver might be too busy focusing on whether they have enough room to make a turn without blocking the box to notice the cyclist coming up behind them which they then cream as they go to make their turn.
A timid driver might be so afraid to venture a few inches into a bus lane while passing an unloading truck that they end up sideswiping it instead - or stop and try to unsafely back up or make a U-turn rather than go around it.
A timid driver might, because they are not proceeding into an intersection when they should, indirectly cause a collision when someone behind them attempts to pass them aggressively and crashes into someone while doing so.
Timid does not equal paying more attention. Timid, generally, equals being overly focused on one thing to the point of not paying enough attention to other things. Hence, draconian enforcement having unintended consequences.
Said unintended consequences can even stretch more broadly beyond the road. Let's say I'm a UPS driver, I got caught blocking the box and I got my license suspended for it. Well, there goes my job. And probably any hope of me ever getting a similar one, since they are going to see that on my record. So now that my livelihood has been taken away, I am statistically more likely to start abusing drugs or alcohol, to abandon my family and run off, to turn to a life of crime as a source of money, to commit suicide, or even to grab a gun and go on a shooting spree. All for the heinous crime of entering an intersection without being able to exit it before the light changed.
Talk about a cure that's worse than the disease.
And guess what: people are still going to block the box, because they are human and will sometimes do so as an honest mistake even if they are not doing it deliberately. Some people, meanwhile, will continue doing it deliberately because the threat of a suspended license does not scare them. After all, plenty of cases DUI, reckless driving, etc. still happen despite a suspended license being a consequence of getting caught.
I don't think people would have a problem with the automated enforcement/cameras if they believed it was actually making them safer and they don't get a ticket when they feel nobody is getting hurt or really violating the intentions of the law. If the red light cameras required the yellows to get extended by a second before getting implemented, give no tickets during the first 1 second of red (during the all red period), and do not give right turn on red tickets unless there is an actual no turn on red restriction, I don't think you'd see the protests and people wanting them gone. Of course, then the ticket companies can't make enough money off them to make a profit.
If red light enforcement is so darn important to the protection of life and limb, then police officers should be stationed at the traffic lights.
Or just reset the signal timing to show red in all directions for five seconds or so when the lights change. Costs nothing and would serve the same purpose.
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2016, 10:45:49 PMFun fact: if pulled over for speeding in New York, the cop running radar has to be the one writing the ticket, else it can be fought in court and thrown out. Again, this is an extension of the above.
This is, theoretically, the way it should be everywhere in the US. If an officer who didn't observe a violator's speed writes and signs the citation, that officer's observation (and any subsequent related testimony in court) is hearsay.
Of course, with most MV violations now classified as "civil infractions," hearsay is probably admissible in traffic court.
I've found the best way to not get red-light tickets is to not run red lights, but apparently a lot of the people on this thread are more interested in technicalities on avoiding the tickets.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 02:45:38 PM
I've found the best way to not get red-light tickets is to not run red lights, but apparently a lot of the people on this thread are more interested in technicalities on avoiding the tickets.
Of course, that is a nice, safe and simple approach. However at some point you find yourself in a situation when you get a ticket no matter what - and disputing that ticket would cost you more than the ticket itself. And more often than not, friendly municipality operating the camera is willing to help you to get into such situation - for example by shortening yellow phase....
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 02:45:38 PM
I've found the best way to not get red-light tickets is to not run red lights, but apparently a lot of the people on this thread are more interested in technicalities on avoiding the tickets.
Several news stories have shown that tickets are accidently handed out on occasion, including one memorable video of a funeral procession where tickets were handed out to vehicles that were directed thru the red light by police.
I'm in agreement that red-light camera tickets are unenforceable as they exist now, but you can't drive through a large city during a morning and evening commute and honestly tell me that drivers running red lights, blocking the box, and other violations of impatience aren't an epidemic. In Los Angeles during rush hour I can count a minimum of four drivers running a red light at EVERY INTERSECTION. I'm not talking about people caught out trying to make a left turn when the light changes from green to yellow to red either, I'm talking about drivers rushing out into the intersection to get through it before cross traffic can put their foot on the accelerator. And yes, I've seen many, many near misses from this behavior. I've also seen many, many intersections backed up unnecessarily by drivers blocking the box because they don't want to wait on another red light cycle. Camera tickets may not work, but something needs to be done to encourage drivers to think twice before rushing into an intersection without heed for anyone's safety.
Quote from: djsekani on August 01, 2016, 04:52:59 PM
Camera tickets may not work, but something needs to be done to encourage drivers to think twice before rushing into an intersection without heed for anyone's safety.
First thing that anyone attempting to solve this puzzle needs to realize - they will end up LOOSING money. Once safety issue is allocated as expense in a budget - as opposed to "red light camera revenue", things may become workable.
Unfortunately, often the root cause of such altitude is overloaded roads, no money/ROW/desire to fix the issue - and willingness to collect a bit more cash from out of town drivers.
Reminds me of a local city which installed easy to use parking terminals. Parking revenue increased, but city bottom line suffered from fewer parking fines being issued...
Quote from: djsekani on August 01, 2016, 04:52:59 PM
I'm in agreement that red-light camera tickets are unenforceable as they exist now, but you can't drive through a large city during a morning and evening commute and honestly tell me that drivers running red lights, blocking the box, and other violations of impatience aren't an epidemic. In Los Angeles during rush hour I can count a minimum of four drivers running a red light at EVERY INTERSECTION. I'm not talking about people caught out trying to make a left turn when the light changes from green to yellow to red either, I'm talking about drivers rushing out into the intersection to get through it before cross traffic can put their foot on the accelerator. And yes, I've seen many, many near misses from this behavior. I've also seen many, many intersections backed up unnecessarily by drivers blocking the box because they don't want to wait on another red light cycle. Camera tickets may not work, but something needs to be done to encourage drivers to think twice before rushing into an intersection without heed for anyone's safety.
But is this epidemic of drivers running a couple red lights by a second or two really a real safety issue? There are some intersections where the timing is just flat out wrong, and making a left at the protected left signal only allows 3 cars per signal due to timing. Can anyone really blame us for continuing a car or 2 or 3 through the yellow and red light, during the all red period, after waiting 9-10 minutes at that intersection already? And if people didn't do that every single cycle, how much worse would traffic be with 50% less throughput?
Quote from: UCFKnights on August 01, 2016, 08:57:43 PM
Can anyone really blame us for continuing a car or 2 or 3 through the yellow and red light, during the all red period, after waiting 9-10 minutes at that intersection already?
At least you're honest, in that you admit that your support for red-light running stems from your impatience.
Under your premise, all rules of the road are subject to the interpretation of the individual motorist's belief on the effect of the rule on vehicle throughput.
As someone who was hit in a crosswalk by someone who didn't care to make a full stop in a right-on-red situation, I have my doubts in the ability of people to make such determinations (especially if they are impatient, perhaps after a 10 minute wait).
Thus, in the absence of letting everyone decide what rules are relevant on any particular drive, I much prefer that there be one standard that everyone is held against.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2016, 02:25:47 PM
If red light enforcement is so darn important to the protection of life and limb, then police officers should be stationed at the traffic lights.
That's a non-sequitur. That's like saying that flagmen should be at every railroad crossing since avoiding train-car collisions is important for protection of life and limb. If you have a technology that can accomplish a task more productively and cheaply than an a human officer, leaving the cop to do actual police work and not just red-light watching, then how could you oppose it?
Cops are expensive (salary, benefits, retirement). Computers and cameras have high up-front costs, but don't require overtime, sick days, etc.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 02:45:38 PM
I've found the best way to not get red-light tickets is to not run red lights, but apparently a lot of the people on this thread are more interested in technicalities on avoiding the tickets.
Some of us do not like the idea of a robot fining us for technically violating a rule that we are in good faith attempting to follow.
If I make a right on red when there is no cross traffic but have only slowed down to 2 mph before proceeding rather than coming to a complete stop, I have broken the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. The camera cares not and will give me a ticket.
If I am traveling at the speed of traffic and the yellow light has been unduly shortened such that I can neither stop behind the line if I slam my brakes upon seeing it nor enter the intersection before it turns red if I don't, I have broken the letter of the law but the signal is rigged to make the letter of the law impossible to follow in that circumstance. The camera cares not and will give me a ticket.
Not to mention that opportunity to use such devices for revenue enhancement creates all sorts of perverse incentives for governments to abuse them. So unless some mechanism is put in place to prevent governments from being able to keep any of the money such cameras bring in, I oppose their existence on account of there being an inherent conflict of interest in their operation.
It sounds like your concern is more about government corruption than red-light cameras.
Truthfully, human-based enforcement (i.e. police) is far more likely to be corrupt and unfair than a computer-based system (which as you mentioned, doesn't care about your sob story or excuse).
PS, slowing down and turning right is running a red light, no matter how many ways you try to justify it.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 10:39:52 PM
It sounds like your concern is more about government corruption than red-light cameras.
Yes.
QuoteTruthfully, human-based enforcement (i.e. police) is far more likely to be corrupt and unfair than a computer-based system (which as you mentioned, doesn't care about your sob story or excuse).
Perhaps, albeit in different ways. It is, however, more effective - a cop giving you a ticket gets you points on your license, a camera does not (and cannot, since there is no way for the camera to prove who was driving the car at the time). Using cameras instead of cops, therefore, hinders the ability to escalate penalties on repeat offenders.
QuotePS, slowing down and turning right is running a red light, no matter how many ways you try to justify it.
This argument presumes that the law as written is the ultimate authority on what is "just". Philosophically, I find that proposition absurd. Why
isn't it legal to make a right on red after a "rolling stop"? It is, after all, a very common behavior. A law being frequently violated tends to be a good indication that it is in some way poorly written or unreasonable.
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
Again, perhaps I am biased because I got hit by someone who evidently agreed with your opinion that it's okay to not stop at a red light when turning right, but that's how life works I guess.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
Again, perhaps I am biased because I got hit by someone who evidently agreed with your opinion that it's okay to not stop at a red light when turning right, but that's how life works I guess.
Well a core part of our system is the 3 branches of government having to agree that what was done is wrong. The executive branch has the ability to decide they don't like and wish to enforce a law created by the legislative branch. Varying levels of enforcement for different laws is a core part of the system.
You were hit by someone who not only failed to stop, but also failed to yield to the person in the crosswalk. That is obviously a much, much more heinous crime and should be enforced very strictly. Me rolling through an intersection to make a right at 10mph with no cars or pedestrians in the entire intersection, clear sight lines is very different from me doing the same with lots of people and cars around.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
Again, perhaps I am biased because I got hit by someone who evidently agreed with your opinion that it's okay to not stop at a red light when turning right, but that's how life works I guess.
Well, creative understanding of the law is a huge feature of US legal system. Look no further than 2nd amendment.. Gitmo showed creative approach to may other fundamental provisions. Speed limits are understood in a very specific way as well.
In a situation when resources - such as road throughput - are limited, creative approach also tends to develop. Same with so-called "human rights" being in the way of law and order..
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 10:19:49 PM
If you have a technology that can accomplish a task more productively and cheaply than an a human officer, leaving the cop to do actual police work and not just red-light watching, then how could you oppose it?
Because it's an easy revenue grab for governments and it doesn't force those government agencies to make the hard decisions regarding prioritizing resources that they need to make.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 02:45:38 PM
I've found the best way to not get red-light tickets is to not run red lights, but apparently a lot of the people on this thread are more interested in technicalities on avoiding the tickets.
So you're saying that you've never been driving down the road and approached a light turning yellow and had to make a split-second decision, "Do I speed up and hope the light doesn't turn red before I go through the intersection and risk getting a ticket from the camera, or do I slam on the brakes and hope I get stopped before I reach the stop bar or threshold for the camera activation, or risk getting rear-ended from someone behind me who can't stop?" All righty then...
The other issue with red light and other enforcement cameras is it doesn't stop someone from doing something wrong, at least in the short term. If a cop sees me going thru a red light, he can stop me right there. With a red light camera, I can get a ticket in the mail 4 weeks later. If it was about safety, why wait 4 weeks? Why not express mail it the next day?
In VA's case of getting hit, would he have wanted a cop to come by weeks later to investigate the accident, or would he want an officer to take care of it within minutes?
In the long term, it can have the opposite effect. Some people become so weary about getting another ticket that they refuse to make a turn on red, even though it's completely legal to do so (and in some cases, required to do so, when safe to go). Now they are wasting gas sitting there and holding up traffic, because of that computer automation that dinged them for traveling thru an intersection so long ago they probably don't even remember the incident.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
So you're saying that you've never been driving down the road and approached a light turning yellow and had to make a split-second decision, "Do I speed up and hope the light doesn't turn red before I go through the intersection and risk getting a ticket from the camera, or do I slam on the brakes and hope I get stopped before I reach the stop bar or threshold for the camera activation, or risk getting rear-ended from someone behind me who can't stop?" All righty then...
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
If you have to slam on the brakes in order to not run a red light, however, I'd argue that you're going too fast for that stretch of road.
To answer your question, no, I've never run a red light (if you define running a red light as entering the intersection after the light turns red).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
So you're saying that you've never been driving down the road and approached a light turning yellow and had to make a split-second decision, "Do I speed up and hope the light doesn't turn red before I go through the intersection and risk getting a ticket from the camera, or do I slam on the brakes and hope I get stopped before I reach the stop bar or threshold for the camera activation, or risk getting rear-ended from someone behind me who can't stop?" All righty then...
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
If you have to slam on the brakes in order to not run a red light, however, I'd argue that you're going too fast for that stretch of road.
To answer your question, no, I've never run a red light (if you define running a red light as entering the intersection after the light turns red).
My daily commute road has 55 MPH limit (25 m/s), and several traffic lights along mostly direct stretch. While most cars are capable of 0.7-0.8g on a dry road, wet road I used today can handle 0.4 g or so. I have no ABS, and I have to be careful not to loose traction on wet road- so I am not pushing things - lets say 0.4g. THat is 6.2 second from applying brakes to full stop, plus 0.3 second reaction time for a total of 6.5 s. Yellow phase is typical 4 s over there.
Alternatively, I can approach the stop line 3.1 second into yellow phase, and said 0.3 seconds human response to understand I can barely make it.
Add any minor distraction, like a guy in that SUV changing lanes in a funny way - and I have a choice between going half speed limit all the time and running first second of all-red something like once a month...
Historically, accidents on that stretch are mostly rear-ending due to congestion, traffic light are not an issue...
I was always taught that speed limits are the maximum speed in safe and ideal driving conditions.
If you're driving a car with inferior braking technology, and/or the road is wet, I think that it is the classic case on when you should go below the speed limit, rather than justify red-light running.
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
So you're saying that you've never been driving down the road and approached a light turning yellow and had to make a split-second decision, "Do I speed up and hope the light doesn't turn red before I go through the intersection and risk getting a ticket from the camera, or do I slam on the brakes and hope I get stopped before I reach the stop bar or threshold for the camera activation, or risk getting rear-ended from someone behind me who can't stop?" All righty then...
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
If you have to slam on the brakes in order to not run a red light, however, I'd argue that you're going too fast for that stretch of road.
To answer your question, no, I've never run a red light (if you define running a red light as entering the intersection after the light turns red).
My daily commute road has 55 MPH limit (25 m/s), and several traffic lights along mostly direct stretch. While most cars are capable of 0.7-0.8g on a dry road, wet road I used today can handle 0.4 g or so. I have no ABS, and I have to be careful not to loose traction on wet road- so I am not pushing things - lets say 0.4g. THat is 6.2 second from applying brakes to full stop, plus 0.3 second reaction time for a total of 6.5 s. Yellow phase is typical 4 s over there.
Alternatively, I can approach the stop line 3.1 second into yellow phase, and said 0.3 seconds human response to understand I can barely make it.
Add any minor distraction, like a guy in that SUV changing lanes in a funny way - and I have a choice between going half speed limit all the time and running first second of all-red something like once a month...
Historically, accidents on that stretch are mostly rear-ending due to congestion, traffic light are not an issue...
On a 55 mph roadway, a yellow phase should be at least 5.5 seconds. If the yellow is only programmed for 4 seconds, then the light is programmed incorrectly.
Basic driving instruction says to reduce speed on wet roadways. If you can't stop in time because you fear you will skid thru an intersection, you are indeed driving too fast for conditions.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
Again, perhaps I am biased because I got hit by someone who evidently agreed with your opinion that it's okay to not stop at a red light when turning right, but that's how life works I guess.
The reason that guy hit you is because he didn't even bother looking for pedestrians, not because he made a rolling stop (I honestly don't notice any difference in awareness between a slow speed turn and a stop). Even if he had made a full stop, that guy probably wouldn't have looked at anything other than vehicle traffic coming the other way.
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2016, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
Again, perhaps I am biased because I got hit by someone who evidently agreed with your opinion that it's okay to not stop at a red light when turning right, but that's how life works I guess.
The reason that guy hit you is because he didn't even bother looking for pedestrians, not because he made a rolling stop (I honestly don't notice any difference in awareness between a slow speed turn and a stop). Even if he had made a full stop, that guy probably wouldn't have looked at anything other than vehicle traffic coming the other way.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. The car has to be in motion to hit me. If the driver stops, the car is not in motion.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 12:49:19 PM
I was always taught that speed limits are the maximum speed in safe and ideal driving conditions.
If you're driving a car with inferior braking technology, and/or the road is wet, I think that it is the classic case on when you should go below the speed limit, rather than justify red-light running.
I would start with phasing traffic lights adequately for the expected speeds. It was fun to observe how NYSDOT contractor spent a full year trying to set up 3 traffic lights (they signed off the job without completing the task, BTW)
Then a couple of newly built parallel roads may help to handle traffic going with ideally safe speed, as the one at hand is not capable of doing so. Maybe a few extra miles of new limited access highway would be useful.
However at this point, road is pretty safe as it is. Probably as safe as it can be with given resources and demand. And I would say that laws are there for safety, not to be blindly obeyed. After all, blatant disobedience to His Majesty is celebrated an a biggest national holiday in US...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 12:51:57 PM
On a 55 mph roadway, a yellow phase should be at least 5.5 seconds. If the yellow is only programmed for 4 seconds, then the light is programmed incorrectly.
Basic driving instruction says to reduce speed on wet roadways. If you can't stop in time because you fear you will skid thru an intersection, you are indeed driving too fast for conditions.
I can stop in time - or go across the intersection in time - with clear understanding that all-red phase is a safety margin which sometimes may get used for purposes other than writing tickets.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:08:43 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 02, 2016, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
Again, perhaps I am biased because I got hit by someone who evidently agreed with your opinion that it's okay to not stop at a red light when turning right, but that's how life works I guess.
The reason that guy hit you is because he didn't even bother looking for pedestrians, not because he made a rolling stop (I honestly don't notice any difference in awareness between a slow speed turn and a stop). Even if he had made a full stop, that guy probably wouldn't have looked at anything other than vehicle traffic coming the other way.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. The car has to be in motion to hit me. If the driver stops, the car is not in motion.
If he wasn't looking for you when he made a rolling stop, why would he be looking for you with a complete stop? He would have stopped, noticed no vehicles conflicting with his turn, and then hit you. That might have been what he thought he was doing anyways, since he was probably going on whether it felt like a stop while paying more attention to the vehicles in the cross street rather than looking at the speedometer. I think it's safe to say that looking for pedestrians wasn't a thought in his head, which is the big issue.
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 12:51:57 PM
On a 55 mph roadway, a yellow phase should be at least 5.5 seconds. If the yellow is only programmed for 4 seconds, then the light is programmed incorrectly.
Basic driving instruction says to reduce speed on wet roadways. If you can't stop in time because you fear you will skid thru an intersection, you are indeed driving too fast for conditions.
I can stop in time - or go across the intersection in time - with clear understanding that all-red phase is a safety margin which sometimes may get used for purposes other than writing tickets.
Actually, your statement (which you conveniently cut out from the quoted response) was that you enter the intersection within the first second of the all-red phase...and due to a distraction at that.
The all-red phase is there to clear out the intersection of existing traffic, not to allow new traffic to enter. I'm not exactly agreeing with VA on his remarks, but clearly you're using the all-red phase as an excuse to enter and then claiming you shouldn't be given a ticket. And doing it "like" once a month isn't much of a justification for running a red light either. Honestly, if the light is timed for 4 seconds, not 5.5 seconds or greater, the issue is the light itself and should be retimed. Honestly, I'd rather see video of the light in action, because usually yellow light timing is measured in 10th of a second time intervals. There's a lot of time between 4 & 5 seconds, for example.
I really couldn't care less what was or wasn't in the drivers mind. All I know is that I was hit by a car that didn't stop when it was supposed to stop. According to you, that's a moot point. I beg to differ but what do I know?
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop, which would put me in a much better position than what happened, which is where the driver didn't come to a complete stop.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
I really couldn't care less what was or wasn't in the drivers mind. All I know is that I was hit by a car that didn't stop when it was supposed to stop. According to you, that's a moot point. I beg to differ but what do I know?
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop, which would put me in a much better position than what happened, which is where the driver didn't come to a complete stop.
Just to clarify, what was the situation? were you crossing the street where traffic was facing red light, or were you crossing a perpendicular street?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).
I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).
The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.
The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.
As far as the cameras making money, I still see it as all a bunch of red herrings by opponents. If the cameras make money, then it's proof that they're just revenue collection for the city. If they lose money, then it's proof that they're a drain on the city and should be removed. Cameras can't win...slick arguments by the opponents.
Thus, the issue about revenue is moot to me. After all, most public services "lose" money. However, it has been determined by the populace or its leaders that such public services serve a public benefit which warrants their operation, be it schools, or hospitals, etc. I would put cameras in that realm as well.
That is, so long as you place a value on people not being hit by cars or getting into car accidents. I suspect some people here are more concerned about slow travel speeds than public safety.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.
Good point. Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights. That should convince people not to do it. After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.
Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too. But I'm sure you don't do that either. Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.
Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines. You want to deter people from doing something. At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live. No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:16:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).
I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).
The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.
The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.
Still everything hangs on assumption driver either did see you and choose not to stop - or didn't see you, but would see you after coming to a full stop. Could easily miss you at a full stop as well..
Not to say driver is not 100% at fault, but I always try to make eye contact in such situations - both as driver and as pedestrian...
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:36:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:16:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).
I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).
The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.
The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.
Still everything hangs on assumption driver either did see you and choose not to stop - or didn't see you, but would see you after coming to a full stop. Could easily miss you at a full stop as well..
Not to say driver is not 100% at fault, but I always try to make eye contact in such situations - both as driver and as pedestrian...
I mean the driver only made a rolling right-on-red and hit me in a situation where the driver shouldn't have made a right-on-red in the first place ("No Right On Red When Pedestrians Are Present").
And I still don't know why you're hanging on this notion that things wouldn't have been better if the driver hadn't stopped first.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.
Good point. Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights. That should convince people not to do it. After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.
Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too. But I'm sure you don't do that either. Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.
Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines. You want to deter people from doing something. At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live. No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.
Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:36:31 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:16:17 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).
I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).
The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.
The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.
Still everything hangs on assumption driver either did see you and choose not to stop - or didn't see you, but would see you after coming to a full stop. Could easily miss you at a full stop as well..
Not to say driver is not 100% at fault, but I always try to make eye contact in such situations - both as driver and as pedestrian...
I mean the driver only made a rolling right-on-red and hit me in a situation where the driver shouldn't have made a right-on-red in the first place ("No Right On Red When Pedestrians Are Present").
And I still don't know why you're hanging on this notion that things wouldn't have been better if the driver hadn't stopped first.
Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would be seen if driver came to a full stop? No, you cannot.
As a matter of fact, a car once made a contact with my leg (you cannot call 0.5 MPH "accident" or "collision") after that car was stopped for a a while, and driver was looking for a gap in traffic. I still feel bad for that lady, she was very scared - and I made a real angry look on my face while walking away..
My point is that following a letter of the law doesn't guarantee awareness.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.
Good point. Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights. That should convince people not to do it. After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.
Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too. But I'm sure you don't do that either. Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.
Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines. You want to deter people from doing something. At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live. No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.
Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.
Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:58:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.
Good point. Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights. That should convince people not to do it. After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.
Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too. But I'm sure you don't do that either. Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.
Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines. You want to deter people from doing something. At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live. No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.
Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.
Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...
Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.
https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm
(https://www.talkbass.com/attachments/sorry-if-im-late-popcorn-line-was-long-jpg.760110/)
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:58:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 02:16:08 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 01:40:37 PM
To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...
If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.
Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.
If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.
Good point. Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights. That should convince people not to do it. After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.
Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too. But I'm sure you don't do that either. Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.
Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines. You want to deter people from doing something. At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live. No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.
Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.
Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...
I checked Wikipedia, and 1.8% of preventable deaths in the United States are caused by car/truck collisions. "Preventable" includes things like smoking (which is much higher on the list).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:58:07 PM
Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...
Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.
https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm
Look at statistics from the other perspective: 17.4/100k world average traffic mortality, 10.6 US. And comparison to Europe is not very fair - US is very car-centric in terms of transportation, EU is much denser packed with much more options of living without a car.
It definitely suck when you are the one of those 10.6 people (or if you don't make into those mortality numbers since doctors did their job). But on a grand scheme of things, this is not the deal breaker. And numbers are going down..
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:58:07 PM
Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...
Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.
https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm
Look at statistics from the other perspective: 17.4/100k world average traffic mortality, 10.6 US. And comparison to Europe is not very fair - US is very car-centric in terms of transportation, EU is much denser packed with much more options of living without a car.
It definitely suck when you are the one of those 10.6 people (or if you don't make into those mortality numbers since doctors did their job). But on a grand scheme of things, this is not the deal breaker. And numbers are going down..
Much more relevant to compare among developed countries, namely OECD member states.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 03:46:39 PM
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on August 02, 2016, 02:58:07 PM
Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...
Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.
https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm
Look at statistics from the other perspective: 17.4/100k world average traffic mortality, 10.6 US. And comparison to Europe is not very fair - US is very car-centric in terms of transportation, EU is much denser packed with much more options of living without a car.
It definitely suck when you are the one of those 10.6 people (or if you don't make into those mortality numbers since doctors did their job). But on a grand scheme of things, this is not the deal breaker. And numbers are going down..
Much more relevant to compare among developed countries, namely OECD member states.
And question is how you normalize the data. Per population, per vehicle, per traveled mileage.. Gap still exist in per-mile data, but it is much less pronounced (which is to say that US has large land mass and more miles per vehicle).
As for pedestrian fatalities - I wouldn't be surprised if it is another altitude problem. People often get very upset when some numbers - like 1/3 of killed pedestrians were drunk - are brought up. Not to mention inability of US to properly use and maintain things like underground / bridge crossings..
It doesn't help that pedestrians are scared of crossing under something and too lazy to cross a bridge over something.
As someone who drives for a living, I'm well aware that there are times when you need to make a judgement call. Not coming to a complete stop before making a right turn on red is not one of those times. There's no excuse for that other than impatience. The idea that some of you are actually trying to blame a pedestrian for getting hit in that scenario is, quite frankly, sickening.
My one red-light camera ticket was actually for this exact thing, not coming to a complete stop before making a right turn on red. I got the ticket thrown out on a technicality, but I'm not going around acting like I did nothing wrong. I actually make a greater effort now to not make the same mistake in the future. Maybe I'm rare in that I value safety and not getting a ticket more than getting to my destination five minutes sooner, but I've witnessed so much stupidity on the roads that has resulted in damage and injury that those five minutes potentially saved just aren't worth it.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 01, 2016, 11:11:37 PM
If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.
I am all in favor of enforcing the law as written, provided the law as written is reasonable. If the law is unreasonable, however, then enforcement of it is by definition oppressive. And no, I am not saying "don't enforce the law because it's unreasonable". I am saying "change the law so it is reasonable".
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 02:16:17 PM
note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights
Ugh, I despise the use of the vague and ambiguous "when pedestrians are present" phrase. At what location or distance from the intersection does a pedestrian cease being "present"? For that matter, does it depend only on the pedestrian's position, or does the pedestrian's velocity also matter?
If a time of day based prohibition doesn't do the trick at least make it say something like "no turn on red when pedestrians in crosswalk" or "no turn on red when pedestrians within 10 feet of intersection". This way it removes the ambiguity.
As for the incident at hand, I am going to have to echo the sentiment that the drivers' primary error was failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. I do not believe he should have been compelled to come to a complete stop, no matter what. I do, however, expect that as a licensed driver he should have the ability to judge when it is, and when it is not, necessary to come to a complete stop in order to avoid causing a collision. The driver failed to judge the situation properly and a law allowing rolling stops would not change that or make him any less at fault.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 03:01:20 PM
Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.
https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm
Not even close. The oecd.org site uses fatalities per population as the basis, and that does not take into account the fact that there are fewer drivers per capita in many other countries. A more realistic measure is fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles. Unfortunately most countries don't appear to keep such stats, but I did find a graphic from Car & Driver magazine with some stats from 2008:
Iceland: 0.63 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles
England: 0.81
Germany: 1.06
USA: 1.13
Czech Republic: 3.15
Korea (assuming this is South Korea): 3.24
Within the US, per IIHS and NHTSA, 2014 stats:
Massachusetts: 0.57
South Carolina: 1.65
(Those are the two extremes.)
USA overall in 2014: 1.08
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to
be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
this is becoming interesting. If there is a 4-lane street to cross, it may be of the order of 60 feet across stop line to stop line (including parking/bicycle lanes etc)
another 17 feet is for a longer car like Chevy Impala. 30 MPH limit is 44 fps, and since it is upper limit lets make it 40.
So 2 seconds between front bumper crossing stop line on one side and rear bumper crossing stop line on the other. 3.25 second stopping time @ 30 MPH and 0.4g acceleration, 130 feet stopping distance for 1.6 s travel time. Plus 0.3 human response = 3.9 second from seeing yellow in unable to stop location and clearing the intersection. That is ZERO tolerance with minimum 3.9 yellow - typical for 30 MPH street....
Now think about driving a bus or a truck...
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
And actually you may be plain wrong after all.
Quote
YELLOW A yellow light means the traffic signal is about to turn red. Stop if you can do so safely. A vehicle may clear an intersection on a red light, if the vehicle entered the intersection while the signal was yellow; but it is against the law to enter an intersection after the light turns red.
From KY driver manual, p.8 (p.15 in pdf file) 2012 version, http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/pdf/2012_ky_drivers_manual_op.pdf
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
You mean there's no law regarding obstruction of traffic in Illinois?
I'm sure there's no problem entering the intersection as long as the light is yellow, as long as you can reasonably complete your movement thru the intersection soon after the light turns red. But if you're sitting in the intersection and can't move because the roadway is blocked beyond the intersection, then your impeding traffic flow, which is definitely a violation.
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
NY writes "blocking the box" tickets. Law is "no person shall drive a vehicle into such intersection, [..] unless there is adequate space on the opposite side of the intersection to accommodate the vehicle".
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AMIt's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
In Massachusetts you must stop for a yellow light "if it is safe." If you're already stopped for some reason, and the light turns yellow, you cannot enter the intersection. (Source: https://www.massrmv.com/Portals/30/docs/dmanual/chapter4.pdf)
Quote from: kalvado on August 03, 2016, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
And actually you may be plain wrong after all.
Quote
YELLOW A yellow light means the traffic signal is about to turn red. Stop if you can do so safely. A vehicle may clear an intersection on a red light, if the vehicle entered the intersection while the signal was yellow; but it is against the law to enter an intersection after the light turns red.
From KY driver manual, p.8 (p.15 in pdf file) 2012 version, http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/pdf/2012_ky_drivers_manual_op.pdf
Then, that's new since I last saw a paper copy of the driver's manual, which admittedly was several years ago.
But that still doesn't change the fact that if you're in the intersection when the light turns red and the intersection is equipped with a red light camera, the camera is most likely going to capture that and you're going to be issued a ticket.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Quote from: kalvado on August 03, 2016, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
And actually you may be plain wrong after all.
Quote
YELLOW A yellow light means the traffic signal is about to turn red. Stop if you can do so safely. A vehicle may clear an intersection on a red light, if the vehicle entered the intersection while the signal was yellow; but it is against the law to enter an intersection after the light turns red.
From KY driver manual, p.8 (p.15 in pdf file) 2012 version, http://www.kentuckystatepolice.org/pdf/2012_ky_drivers_manual_op.pdf
Then, that's new since I last saw a paper copy of the driver's manual, which admittedly was several years ago.
But that still doesn't change the fact that if you're in the intersection when the light turns red and the intersection is equipped with a red light camera, the camera is most likely going to capture that and you're going to be issued a ticket.
In ideal world, camera should be OK with you
moving through the intersection on red if you
entered it during yellow phase. Most likely you are referring to a provision which prohibits being
stopped within the intersection during red phase ("Block the box" in NY-speak).
Should be easy for camera to distinguish if a reference picture is always taken the moment light turns red. Some extra work, sure...
Interestingly enough, wordy descriptions of red-yellow-green seem identical in KY and NY. Are those clipped from MUTCD?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2016, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
You mean there's no law regarding obstruction of traffic in Illinois?
The obstructer would be the person impeding the person turning and preventing him/her from completing his/her turn.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
But that still doesn't change the fact that if you're in the intersection when the light turns red and the intersection is equipped with a red light camera, the camera is most likely going to capture that and you're going to be issued a ticket.
The cameras that I've seen use the stop line as their point of reference. The only time that you can receive a ticket is if you cross the stop line without stopping first (such as for right turn on red).
There is a left turn that a make on a near-daily basis. The intersection has cameras on all four quadrants. When turning left, because the intersection has pro/per left turns, I pull forward past the stop line, and finish the turn, usually on red (because there's often a huge amount of oncoming cars). In the three years that I've been turning left there, I've never been issued a ticket. If I ever did, I'd take it to court, and very carefully explain to then that you can't run a red light if you crossed the stop line on green or amber.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 30, 2016, 06:40:16 PM
Didn't Mississippi outlaw red light cameras state-wide? If so, then they probably could've drawn their study from the places in Mississippi that used to have red light cameras...
Arizona outlawed them.
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2016, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
You mean there's no law regarding obstruction of traffic in Illinois?
The obstructer would be the person impeding the person turning and preventing him/her from completing his/her turn.
No. Because you may not even be turning. If the street you're trying to access, whether it be straight across or the cross street, is filled with traffic, you may not be able to complete your movement thru the intersection. Who are you going to blame....the guy 10 cars ahead of you stopped at another traffic light?
YOU are the one obstructing traffic if you're in the middle of the intersection. You can't control the actions of other drivers...you can only control yourself. If there are multiple people in the intersection, then you are all obstructing.
Quote from vdane:
QuoteGranted, I do not take the view of "the law is the law is the law"; I'm a proponent of taking in the whole context of the situation and view the law as a framework for setting consequences for when someone does something that harmed someone (or could reasonably be expected to hard someone). For example, I wouldn't bother with punishing someone for making a rolling right on red when there are no pedestrians or conflicting vehicles nearby, but if they failed to yield to a pedestrian and hit them or had a near miss, they would be permanently banned from operating anything with an engine in it and be arrested on the spot. Basically, I'd be lenient to those who technically violate the law but aren't causing problems, but be draconian on anyone who did cause harm (or came close).
That's my exact philosophy.
And I agree that all-red clearance phases should be mandatory, esp on roads with speed limits over 45. At one signalized intersection on US 72 in South Pittsburg, TN, trucks come blasting thru 3 -4 seconds after their light goes red, and that's probably cause their yellow is way too short. US 72 in that area is a high-speed divided highway. They are really dumb when it comes to traffic control and signage in general in Tennessee. They are not even smart enough to realize that you are supposed to take down the stop signs when you signalize an intersection.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2016, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
You mean there's no law regarding obstruction of traffic in Illinois?
The obstructer would be the person impeding the person turning and preventing him/her from completing his/her turn.
No. Because you may not even be turning. If the street you're trying to access, whether it be straight across or the cross street, is filled with traffic, you may not be able to complete your movement thru the intersection. Who are you going to blame....the guy 10 cars ahead of you stopped at another traffic light?
YOU are the one obstructing traffic if you're in the middle of the intersection. You can't control the actions of other drivers...you can only control yourself. If there are multiple people in the intersection, then you are all obstructing.
No, you're not. The cop will give out the ticket to the person going straight through who is blocking the movements of other people, the one turning left and those who are on the cross street.
Quote from: Brian556 on August 04, 2016, 02:22:22 PM
Quote from vdane:
QuoteGranted, I do not take the view of "the law is the law is the law"; I'm a proponent of taking in the whole context of the situation and view the law as a framework for setting consequences for when someone does something that harmed someone (or could reasonably be expected to hard someone). For example, I wouldn't bother with punishing someone for making a rolling right on red when there are no pedestrians or conflicting vehicles nearby, but if they failed to yield to a pedestrian and hit them or had a near miss, they would be permanently banned from operating anything with an engine in it and be arrested on the spot. Basically, I'd be lenient to those who technically violate the law but aren't causing problems, but be draconian on anyone who did cause harm (or came close).
That's my exact philosophy.
And I agree that all-red clearance phases should be mandatory, esp on roads with speed limits over 45. At one signalized intersection on US 72 in South Pittsburg, TN, trucks come blasting thru 3 -4 seconds after their light goes red, and that's probably cause their yellow is way too short. US 72 in that area is a high-speed divided highway. They are really dumb when it comes to traffic control and signage in general in Tennessee. They are not even smart enough to realize that you are supposed to take down the stop signs when you signalize an intersection.
Problem is that those very-low-risk things tend to accumulate. Assuming (just a random assumption) that a turn on red without stopping has a 1 in 100 thousand injury accident probability. Driver does it 3 times a day, 300 days a year, 40 years of driving... And that means 1 injury per 2.5 drivers for just one maneuver.
We are really talking about regulations which aim at reducing accident probability from 1 in 100 k to 1 in 10 million..
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2016, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2016, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
You mean there's no law regarding obstruction of traffic in Illinois?
The obstructer would be the person impeding the person turning and preventing him/her from completing his/her turn.
No. Because you may not even be turning. If the street you're trying to access, whether it be straight across or the cross street, is filled with traffic, you may not be able to complete your movement thru the intersection. Who are you going to blame....the guy 10 cars ahead of you stopped at another traffic light?
YOU are the one obstructing traffic if you're in the middle of the intersection. You can't control the actions of other drivers...you can only control yourself. If there are multiple people in the intersection, then you are all obstructing.
No, you're not. The cop will give out the ticket to the person going straight through who is blocking the movements of other people, the one turning left and those who are on the cross street.
You clearly aren't getting it. I'm saying the street is filled with traffic and you can't get on it. There is no opposing traffic in the intersection. It leaves you stuck in the intersection.
That's the whole premise behind the Don't Block The Box rules and signage in cities.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2016, 06:16:57 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2016, 04:57:05 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 04, 2016, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2016, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 03, 2016, 12:41:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2016, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 02, 2016, 11:58:13 AM
It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.
Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.
In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red. As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.
You mean there's no law regarding obstruction of traffic in Illinois?
The obstructer would be the person impeding the person turning and preventing him/her from completing his/her turn.
No. Because you may not even be turning. If the street you're trying to access, whether it be straight across or the cross street, is filled with traffic, you may not be able to complete your movement thru the intersection. Who are you going to blame....the guy 10 cars ahead of you stopped at another traffic light?
YOU are the one obstructing traffic if you're in the middle of the intersection. You can't control the actions of other drivers...you can only control yourself. If there are multiple people in the intersection, then you are all obstructing.
No, you're not. The cop will give out the ticket to the person going straight through who is blocking the movements of other people, the one turning left and those who are on the cross street.
You clearly aren't getting it. I'm saying the street is filled with traffic and you can't get on it. There is no opposing traffic in the intersection. It leaves you stuck in the intersection.
That's the whole premise behind the Don't Block The Box rules and signage in cities.
Blocking the box - at the ultimate limit
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2FPicServer2%2F24012010%2F3041097%2Funtitled_wa.jpg&hash=308f7ea58927f55f9a504631a7e6fd055be1513e)
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
But that still doesn't change the fact that if you're in the intersection when the light turns red and the intersection is equipped with a red light camera, the camera is most likely going to capture that and you're going to be issued a ticket.
Depends on how the camera is designed. Quite a few red light cameras are triggered not by the presence of a vehicle in the intersection while the light is red, but rather by a vehicle approaching the intersection above a certain speed while the light is red, where it assumes based on how fast the vehicle is going that it is about to run the red light.
I know for a fact that NYC's red light cameras work like this. If you get a ticket from one, it will feature two photos: one of your car with the front bumper behind the stop line while the light is red, and another of your car in the intersection while the light is red. It is not possible to take the first photo unless the camera triggers before the vehicle enters the intersection, so it therefore must be designed to do this. And it is necessary to have both photos in order to prove that the light was red when the vehicle entered the intersection - the second photo alone only proves that the vehicle was passing through the intersection while the light was red, which is not illegal.
This means two things:
1) If you are stopped in the intersection when the light turns red, the camera will not trigger. You may (depends on if you are turning or going straight) be guilty of blocking the box, but this is a different offense from running a red light and state law does not permit automated enforcement of it.
2) It is possible to trigger the camera without actually running the red light if you approach the intersection relatively fast and then brake hard enough to stop behind the line. I triggered a camera doing exactly this once, though I never got a ticket in the mail from it. Presumably the individual reviewing the citations generated by the camera flagged it as a false positive and threw it out.
Looks like the "study" was a complete sham: http://thenewspaper.com/news/50/5015.asp
Quote from: vdeane on August 11, 2016, 10:44:32 PM
Looks like the "study" was a complete sham: http://thenewspaper.com/news/50/5015.asp
As I stated in reply #2:
Quote from: SidS1045IIHS is a long-time shill for the insurance industry, and never met a scheme to bilk motorists out of their money that they didn't like.
They aren't even particularly subtle: "...after adjusting for other factors..." Yeah, right.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 12, 2016, 11:31:19 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 11, 2016, 10:44:32 PM
Looks like the "study" was a complete sham: http://thenewspaper.com/news/50/5015.asp
As I stated in reply #2:Quote from: SidS1045IIHS is a long-time shill for the insurance industry, and never met a scheme to bilk motorists out of their money that they didn't like.
They aren't even particularly subtle: "...after adjusting for other factors..." Yeah, right.
As the article shows, it is MUCH WORSE than "after adjusting for other factors". They aren't even comparing apples to oranges, much less apples... more like apples to broccoli (they're comparing accident rates in cities with red light cameras to cities that never had red light cameras, not even looking at intersections or what kind of accident it was). Plus now we have PROOF.
Quote from: vdeane on August 12, 2016, 07:31:57 PMAs the article shows, it is MUCH WORSE than "after adjusting for other factors". They aren't even comparing apples to oranges, much less apples... more like apples to broccoli (they're comparing accident rates in cities with red light cameras to cities that never had red light cameras, not even looking at intersections or what kind of accident it was). Plus now we have PROOF.
You missed my point. I was implying that those "other factors" were basically anything IIHS wished to fudge to make the numbers come out in favor of red-light-camera thievery, up to, including and far beyond making asinine comparisons.
I have never trusted anything IIHS has to say about anything, and this only feeds my distrust.
Quote from: SidS1045 on August 13, 2016, 02:05:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 12, 2016, 07:31:57 PMAs the article shows, it is MUCH WORSE than "after adjusting for other factors". They aren't even comparing apples to oranges, much less apples... more like apples to broccoli (they're comparing accident rates in cities with red light cameras to cities that never had red light cameras, not even looking at intersections or what kind of accident it was). Plus now we have PROOF.
You missed my point. I was implying that those "other factors" were basically anything IIHS wished to fudge to make the numbers come out in favor of red-light-camera thievery, up to, including and far beyond making asinine comparisons.
That's what she said. She wasn't agreeing with IIHS.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2016, 02:14:30 PM
That's what she said.
That threw me off. I kept trying to read your next sentence as a terrible joke, but it just wasn't making sense as sexual innuendo.
Then I realized.