What is your opinion of the new camera instalations in some states? Do you think it is fair, or just?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6695938319/in/photostream/
I don't think any ticket should be issued without a police officer having witnessed the infraction to determine that (a) the action was actually unsafe and (b) the action wasn't actually performed to avoid a dangerous situation.
In the first case, I don't think a camera should ticket a driver for running a red light at 3:30 AM when there isn't a signle other vehicle nearby. In the second case, a person might run a red light to avoid being rear-ended or to evade a nearby drunk driver. A uniformed traffic stop is one thing, as a person can plead his case at no expense before a ticket is issued; an ticket automatically generated by a camera is something else, with no real human involvement unless you want to go before the judge.
Red light cameras I dislike but tolerate. Speed cameras... fuck speed cameras.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
I don't think any ticket should be issued without a police officer having witnessed the infraction to determine that (a) the action was actually unsafe and (b) the action wasn't actually performed to avoid a dangerous situation.
In the first case, I don't think a camera should ticket a driver for running a red light at 3:30 AM when there isn't a signle other vehicle nearby. In the second case, a person might run a red light to avoid being rear-ended or to evade a nearby drunk driver. A uniformed traffic stop is one thing, as a person can plead his case at no expense before a ticket is issued; an ticket automatically generated by a camera is something else, with no real human involvement unless you want to go before the judge.
Plus there's that pesky sixth amendment.
Depends. If they're operated fairly, i.e. yellows are long enough, then I don't have a problem with them.
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
Quote from: 6a on January 14, 2012, 03:20:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
I don't think any ticket should be issued without a police officer having witnessed the infraction to determine that (a) the action was actually unsafe and (b) the action wasn't actually performed to avoid a dangerous situation.
In the first case, I don't think a camera should ticket a driver for running a red light at 3:30 AM when there isn't a signle other vehicle nearby. In the second case, a person might run a red light to avoid being rear-ended or to evade a nearby drunk driver. A uniformed traffic stop is one thing, as a person can plead his case at no expense before a ticket is issued; an ticket automatically generated by a camera is something else, with no real human involvement unless you want to go before the judge.
Plus there's that pesky sixth amendment.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The notion of being able to confront your accuser. It has often been argued that the accuser in a red light/speed camera ticket case is the camera or the private company operating the camera, the former of which is a non-human entity that cannot testify, and the other is often located a good distance away from the site of the alleged infraction and cannot/will not testify. The police officer is little more than a witness, an intermediary, when the process is boiled down to its essence.
My opinion on red light cameras, over the course of the past 1 1/2 years, has gone from being mildly opposed to being very strongly opposed. My change of heart toward them came after I had a very close call with a recently installed system at this very large intersection (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Oregon+99W+%26+SW+Roy+Rogers+Rd,+Sherwood,+Washington,+Oregon+97140&hl=en&ll=45.370117,-122.843413&spn=0.008231,0.021136&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&geocode=FTVKtAIdCpCt-A&hnear=Oregon+99W+%26+SW+Roy+Rogers+Rd,+Sherwood,+Washington,+Oregon+97140&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=0&layer=c&cbll=45.370192,-122.843515&panoid=2-lXMK3m7R_mxNK5w-MMLA&cbp=12,125.27,,0,9.78) in Sherwood, Oregon in October 2010, where I narrowly escaped getting flashed. The signal timing was clearly off (all the phases were unreasonably short) and just didn't seem right--so I started doing some research and really didn't like what I found.
In theory, the idea sounds reasonable enough . . . a camera photographs people that run red lights. I think running a red light is something which just about every motorist (and non-motorist) can agree is generally an unwise thing to do. However, the actual implementation, logistics and practice of red light camera operations is absolutely horrible and extremely questionable from an ethical standpoint. Here's why:
1) Profit motive. This is a two-pronged issue, actually.
The first is your basic "speed trap"-type situation. The city or other municipality that operates the signal can make adjustments in the signal phasing (while yellow phases are often addressed, oddities in green and red phasing can also make a huge impact) so as to rig the signal to force people to run the red, increasing ticket revenue. Other times, it won't necessarily be a purposeful manipulation--sometimes, there will simply be some engineering negligence or other failings with the intersection itself that are the reason for the red light running problem, but this is in and of itself ethically shady. In effect, the municipality is exploiting defects in the intersection or signal setup for profit. Note that even when the city that has the camera does not maintain/operate the signal, state/county laws and arrangements relating to camera installation usually result in the state and county getting a cut of the ticket revenue. You know that intersection I cited in Sherwood? Turns out the Oregon DOT
deleted the signal control software at the intersection (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/09/what_do_joan_rivers_and_sherwo.html), causing irregularities in timing and resulting in a ton of profit. The city was later
forced to refund some tickets (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/11/every_once_in_awhile_a_problem.html) after the expose.
The other is the matter of who actually operates the cameras. Red light camera systems are quite expensive for municipalities (particularly small/mid-sized ones, and even places as large as Los Angeles and Houston) to be able to own and operate outright. So 99% of the red light cameras in the US are not owned by the municipality whose jurisdiction they are under. Instead, the municipalities usually sign a BOOM (Build/Own/Operate/Maintain) contract with a red light camera vendor, such as Redflex, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), or Affiliated Computer Systems (ACS). All of these are
for-profit companies that are traded on stock exchanges--Goldman Sachs owns a large stake of ATS (somewhere around 30-40%), ACS is owned by Xerox outright, and Redflex, in the past 2 years, had buyouts on the table from Macquarie Bank of Australia and ATS itself. Virtually all of these BOOM contracts mean that this private vendor actually controls all the equipment, and usually gets a pretty substantial cut of the revenue from the tickets as partial renumeration (in addition to "monthly rent"), sometimes on a sliding scale based on quotas. To my knowledge, the contract that the City of Beaverton, Oregon has with Redflex stipulates that Redflex gets a 44% cut of every red light camera ticket (a pretty hefty sum when you consider that Beaverton's fine for a red light moving violation is around $400).
While these camera vendors often cite "safety", at their core, they are in it to make money. Lots of money. They often will try to take advantage of every technicality they can to issue tickets, even with the supposed "safety net" of having the municipality's police department "check" the violations.
2) The actual technology itself is problematic and inherently flawed. Almost all red light cameras operate on the principle of a series of piezo pickups embedded in the roadway that detect a vehicle crossing them. Usually, these are situated on the first crosswalk line/stop line at the intersection, though it varies according to state laws and the design of the intersection (making it rather inconsistent). If the vehicle trips the piezos while the signal appears to be red, the camera system goes off.
This sounds simple enough, but there are some inherent problems with this. As the municipalities are generally forbidden from handing control or in any way directly over to the private vendor, the camera system is
not actually hooked up to the signal. The reason behind this is one of the few ethical checks-and-balances in the typical red light camera arrangement: do you really want a for-profit corporation, whose business is extracting money from red-light running violations and not traffic engineering, to be controlling the signal timing directly? This does, however, create some other problems. Because the camera is not directly synchronized with the signal, it has to be manually calibrated to coincide with the timing of the signal phases. If there's any change in the signal phase, or a complex phasing arrangement, it gets more difficult to manage. As these cameras can go off so frequently, it can often become rather difficult for the police department to really proof the evidence they're getting from the vendor, and it's quite possible to get a ticket for legally passing through on a yellow or even a green light. There are no standards for calibration, and it's almost purely up to the vendor to keep up on it. And they can profit handily from being negligent.
Redflex has also recently started trying to convince some municipalities to hand over control of signals to them with their promise of some "newfangled" technology to prevent red-light running--Chandler, Arizona's police chief
seems to be taking the bait already (http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2011/12/01/20111201chandler-new-technology-could-cut-wrecks.html).
Additionally, there's the technicalities. One of the most common ones is the stop line/crosswalk situation. If you stop just a little bit into the white line, you're probably going to get flashed and there's a good chance you'll be cited for running a red light (even if you never actually entered the intersection or were any real threat to traffic safety). The City of Denver (an ACS/Xerox client) has recently quadrupled the revenue of its camera program by exploiting this.
Furthermore, many red light cameras are set up so as to try to "predict" if a motorist is going to run a red light, using algorithms involving the average breaking speed. If you travel over the preliminary sensor fast enough but manage to stop faster than the camera vendor thinks you can and do not actually run the red light, the camera can go off and you can still be cited. This gets to be a favorite sticking point of vendors particularly with "right-on-red" situations. If you do not stop for an arbitrary amount of time before making your turn, or drive over one of the piezos above a certain speed, flash. That's right, you can actually get a ticket for red-light running just because a computer "thinks" you're going to run it.
Examples of these technicalities can be read about
here (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/05/portland_attorney_proves_red-l.html), or seen in the video below. While the Prius driver in the video could be cited for entering the crosswalk
at this intersection in Newark, California (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Newark,+California&hl=en&ll=37.550396,-122.049394&spn=0.018577,0.042272&client=opera&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&hnear=Newark,+Alameda,+California&t=m&z=15&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=37.550623,-122.049843&panoid=6o3yz8pPWnS1fiGII0AOOw&cbp=12,119.51,,0,11.33), it's a stretch to call it red light running, and the camera flash actually goes off
even before they get up to the crosswalk.
3) The jury is still out on whether or not red-light cameras actually do anything to improve safety. The results are mixed at best, and muddied by the fact that some of the groups that have issued studies have an inherent conflict-of-interest. The IIHS, being an insurance industry group, profits from being able to increase insurance premiums after camera citations, and Redflex and ATS have been known to start phony astroturf "advocacy" groups (such as the "Coalition for Safer Roads") and publish bogus studies (and there's also the matter of now-former ATS Vice-President William Kroske playing internet troll on some newspaper online comment sections). Of the legitimate studies out there, the common theme is that while side-angle collisions can be reduced, rear-end collisions often increase, and these results vary to a wide degree. And
one study done last year (http://library.state.or.us/repository/2011/201109140846573/index.pdf) by the Oregon DOT about a camera system installed in Salem, Oregon showed that there was a 77% increase in accidents across the board after installation, a situation that was actually downplayed in the report by the fact that the "before" study period was much longer than the "after" period (50 months vs. 21 months)--I did an analysis of the discrepancy
here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5569.msg121953#msg121953).
4) Delivery of citations. The standard practice is to mail the citation to the registered owner of the car. But what if the registered owner wasn't driving? Or the car is registered to a company or governmental agency? Or the driver can't be identified at all? Often times, this can create some major legal questions that could have easily been avoided if a police officer had simply pulled the driver over. Sometimes, the camera companies (especially Redflex) will send out bogus, unprosecutable tickets called "snitch tickets", where the driver of the car is clearly not the registered owner (e.g. gender/age mismatch), in an attempt to get the registered owner to "snitch out" the actual driver.
Additionally, as the volume of these tickets can be quite high, it can also be quite difficult to challenge them. Some cities/counties will have massive lines backed up out of the courthouses with people trying to challenge red light camera tickets, and some places have even decreed that camera tickets
cannot be challenged, citing the sheer volume of potential challengers.
-Tarkus
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
Not always, a person can get accused of sexual harrassment and that person will not know the one who made the complaint. I have seen people get demoted and fired from positions, because usually a woman filing a complaint of this nature usually is trying to rid herself of a boss that she does not like for personal reasons. Always, the name is withheld to protect the complainer from harm, but the one who is innocent of the ordeal cannot face and deal with the action brought against him. There is no way to prove innocence as well, cause case is closed after the person fired or demoted.
We live in an age where we gave up privacy so we can rid ourselves of certain crimes, so the constitution will only protect you limited.
I believe there are some cases (PA and NY) where there is an appeal process as a first step, that doesn't involve court. You can file an appeal by sending in a form, to the jurisdiction in charge of the signal, and they then review the photo. In the case of obvious camera error (for example, the stop line/crosswalk example above) the ticket is then rescinded no harm no foul. Someone can correct me or fill in details as I'm going off the top of my head.
Also in PA and NY, the intersections are clearly marked as "Photo Enforced". So at least in PA and NY, it seems like they're trying to be somewhat fair so I have no problem with it. The Oregon examples seem pretty bad.
As far as the statistical analysis, it seems in general that red light cameras possibly make those intersections slightly safer. Is it worth the hassle the cameras cause? Don't know. And in some cases, there definitely seems to be a revenue "goal".
Quote from: roadman65 on January 14, 2012, 06:27:55 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
Not always, a person can get accused of sexual harrassment and that person will not know the one who made the complaint. I have seen people get demoted and fired from positions, because usually a woman filing a complaint of this nature usually is trying to rid herself of a boss that she does not like for personal reasons. Always, the name is withheld to protect the complainer from harm, but the one who is innocent of the ordeal cannot face and deal with the action brought against him. There is no way to prove innocence as well, cause case is closed after the person fired or demoted.
We live in an age where we gave up privacy so we can rid ourselves of certain crimes, so the constitution will only protect you limited.
That's private employment practice and has nothing to do with the 6th Amendment, which has to do with how governments conduct themselves in court proceedings. Most states allow privately held companies to fire employees "for any reason, or for no reason". Unfortunately you're not really guaranteed anything like due process or constitutional rights by private companies, except where laws exist that specifically compel companies to give you such things.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 14, 2012, 06:49:15 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 14, 2012, 06:27:55 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
Not always, a person can get accused of sexual harrassment and that person will not know the one who made the complaint. I have seen people get demoted and fired from positions, because usually a woman filing a complaint of this nature usually is trying to rid herself of a boss that she does not like for personal reasons. Always, the name is withheld to protect the complainer from harm, but the one who is innocent of the ordeal cannot face and deal with the action brought against him. There is no way to prove innocence as well, cause case is closed after the person fired or demoted.
We live in an age where we gave up privacy so we can rid ourselves of certain crimes, so the constitution will only protect you limited.
That's private employment practice and has nothing to do with the 6th Amendment, which has to do with how governments conduct themselves in court proceedings. Most states allow privately held companies to fire employees "for any reason, or for no reason". Unfortunately you're not really guaranteed anything like due process or constitutional rights by private companies, except where laws exist that specifically compel companies to give you such things.
I really do not know about that, cause a lawyer said to me once that sexual harrassment does not fall under the "Right to Work" status of Florida and employers do not have to follow that ruling.
The main point I was making is that we as a society is changing and pulling away from the privacy of the consitution. I just used the sexual harrasment thing as another example.
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
You can. The accuser is a police officer. He uses video or picture data captured by the camera as evidence. He shows up in court. At least around here, the ticket process isn't automatic. A cop has to look over the camera data before writing the ticket. What bugs me from a legal standpoint is that the car owner gets the ticket, not the driver.
I'm not a fan of the red light cameras personally. Studies have shown that they actually increase rear end accidents. And ticketing RTOR drivers is dumb. But in the big picture, there are bigger issues to worry about.
Quote from: realjd on January 14, 2012, 07:40:44 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
You can. The accuser is a police officer. He uses video or picture data captured by the camera as evidence. He shows up in court. At least around here, the ticket process isn't automatic. A cop has to look over the camera data before writing the ticket. What bugs me from a legal standpoint is that the car owner gets the ticket, not the driver.
I'm not a fan of the red light cameras personally. Studies have shown that they actually increase rear end accidents. And ticketing RTOR drivers is dumb. But in the big picture, there are bigger issues to worry about.
True, you loan your car out to somebody and they run the light, and you PAY not only the fine, but it goes on your driving record. What if you have a girlfriend who you break up with who decides to get even with you after seeing the Kelly Clarkson video of Since You've Been Gone and goes on a rampage with your vehicle and drives through every traffic signal around to get your car's license tag photographed? You get in trouble!
Quote from: realjd on January 14, 2012, 07:40:44 PM
You can. The accuser is a police officer. He uses video or picture data captured by the camera as evidence. He shows up in court. At least around here, the ticket process isn't automatic. A cop has to look over the camera data before writing the ticket. What bugs me from a legal standpoint is that the car owner gets the ticket, not the driver.
I'm not a fan of the red light cameras personally. Studies have shown that they actually increase rear end accidents. And ticketing RTOR drivers is dumb. But in the big picture, there are bigger issues to worry about.
That's what I was getting at - IF there is an officer review. It was hinted earlier that that isn't always the case. Twice now I've triggered the camera near my house while the light was turned off for the night. Neither one got me a ticket, so that part of the process works (even if the camera apparently doesn't.)
Quote from: realjd on January 14, 2012, 07:40:44 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 14, 2012, 04:07:01 PM
Huh? How does the 6th Amendment factor in?
The right to confront (and cross-examine) the witnesses against you.
You can. The accuser is a police officer.
Absolutely WRONG. The police office was not a witness and was not anywhere near the camera installation/intersection, so he/she has no first-hand knowledge of the facts and cannot lawfully accuse the alleged violator of anything.
Just keep in mind that famous line from "Jerry Maguire:" "Follow the money."
Ban both red light cameras and speed cameras! I damn near got rear-ended at 135th and IL-59 in Plainfield due to one of these fucking things. Had the truck behind me not gone into the right turn area beside, YES, BESIDE, me, I would've been suing the shit out of the village, IDOT, and whatever camera company the village contracts to. Without the camera, I would've sailed on through on the late yellow and gotten away from the truck.
Quote from: Brandon on January 15, 2012, 12:35:02 AM
Ban both red light cameras and speed cameras!
I'd agree with that entirely. In fact, in the past week or so, several state-level efforts to ban cameras have popped up. Lawmakers in Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Florida are currently discussing bans, and there is a ballot initiative proposal that was just announced in Washington. Honestly, I think it'll only be a matter of time before the cameras go the way of the dodo. There's just too many problems with them on technical and ethical grounds.
Quote from: Brandon on January 15, 2012, 12:35:02 AM
whatever camera company the village contracts to.
According to
The Expired Meter (http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/10/red-light-cameras-headed-to-plainfield/), Plainfield appears to use a smaller vendor, LaserCraft.
-Tarkus
Quote from: Brandon on January 15, 2012, 12:35:02 AM
Ban tailgaters! I damn near got rear-ended at 135th and IL-59 in Plainfield due to one of these fucking things.
Fixed for you.
One way states get around the Sixth Amendment issue is to classify lots of traffic offenses as "civil infractions" rather than as "criminal offenses," especially things enforced by cameras. The Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in non-criminal matters.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 14, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Red light cameras I dislike but tolerate. Speed cameras... fuck speed cameras.
Luckily for us they are illegal in our state. New Haven wanted to install red light cameras but couldn't because of state law.
Quote from: connroadgeek on January 15, 2012, 09:07:38 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 14, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Red light cameras I dislike but tolerate. Speed cameras... fuck speed cameras.
Luckily for us they are illegal in our state. New Haven wanted to install red light cameras but couldn't because of state law.
They were illegal in NJ. Then Newark tried them out. Now they're everywhere.
Speaking of Red Light Cameras, the following was in the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/01/15/red-light-offenses-arent-all-close.html
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 15, 2012, 01:08:44 PM
One way states get around the Sixth Amendment issue is to classify lots of traffic offenses as "civil infractions" rather than as "criminal offenses," especially things enforced by cameras. The Sixth Amendment doesn't apply in non-criminal matters.
That's what I was getting at. The 6th Amendment and a traffic violation don't seem to have a link IMO.
I'd like to invite anyone in the anti-red light camera camp to have their car totaled by a red light runner, as mine was a few months ago in an incident where I was fortunate to avoid serious injury. Would such an installation prevented the accident? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd feel better that some entity was trying something to use as a deterrent.
Any place where I've seen red light cameras had signs at the intersection clearly alerting the driver to the installation (and they should always be signed but that's a different discussion) so it isn't a surprise. Is the whopping amount of seconds that you save not going through a late yellow really worth a) the fine or b) your safety or that of someone else? We all have to make cost-benefit analysis so to each their own, but I find the whinging about not being able to go through late yellows to be hollow and rather despicable, to be frank.
I'd like to have yellow lights come with a countdown timer so I can make decisions more intelligently.
green and red ones, too.
Sometimes you need to be able to go through yellow or red lights–for safety reasons (to avoid a rear-ending), in the event of a signal malfunction (should you really have to sit at a red light at 2 AM for 20 minutes because the detector loop didn't register your car), emergency (driving someone to the hospital), other exceptional circumstances (it's an inner city area and there appears to be a menacing looking gang walking towards your car with the intent to rob you). It would be nice if we didn't have to suffer a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't dilemma because some politician wanted to make the city a few extra bucks–which is what most of these red light cameras seem to be, not a real attempt to deter blatant red light running.
Quote from: InterstateNG on January 16, 2012, 02:20:03 PM
I'd like to invite anyone in the anti-red light camera camp to have their car totaled by a red light runner, as mine was a few months ago in an incident where I was fortunate to avoid serious injury. Would such an installation prevented the accident? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd feel better that some entity was trying something to use as a deterrent.
A nice appeal to emotion, but it's not supported by facts. Red-light running is not nearly the monstrous problem the so-called safety lobby makes it out to be. The costs of installation and enforcement keep a lot of people employed and statistically do absolutely nothing for the safety of intersections with traffic signals...except, in some cases, to increase the incidence of rear-end collisions as drivers no longer recognize the timing of yellow lights and slam on their brakes when they don't have to, to avoid being ticketed.
As I stated above, follow the money. Cash-strapped municipalities see a source for ready cash and fall for it, hook, line and sinker. Never mind that they are farming out traffic safety to private companies with vested interests, not the least of which is collecting a fee per ticket issued. (No conflict of interest there, huh?) Never mind that in too many cases, where there aren't enough tickets being issued to make the cameras pay, the yellow-light interval is shortened, contrary to the principles of traffic engineering, which inevitably increases rear-end collisions and makes violators out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
If there are drivers running red lights, maybe the cause ought to be found through a traffic engineering study, rather than just ticketing everyone (which is no deterrent anyhow, since camera tickets arrive in the mail long after the alleged violation has occurred).
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 16, 2012, 10:54:12 PM
A nice appeal to emotion, but it's not supported by facts. Red-light running is not nearly the monstrous problem the so-called safety lobby makes it out to be.
indeed. I've had two cars totaled by red-light runners and I still don't cameras are the solution.
again, the solution is twofold: 1) more information during all phases, like a countdown timer for yellows - especially short yellows like 4 seconds on the 70mph section of TX-71 - and 2) execute anyone who runs the red light because they are too fucking stupid to pay attention.
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 16, 2012, 10:54:12 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on January 16, 2012, 02:20:03 PM
I'd like to invite anyone in the anti-red light camera camp to have their car totaled by a red light runner, as mine was a few months ago in an incident where I was fortunate to avoid serious injury. Would such an installation prevented the accident? Maybe, maybe not, but I'd feel better that some entity was trying something to use as a deterrent.
A nice appeal to emotion, but it's not supported by facts. Red-light running is not nearly the monstrous problem the so-called safety lobby makes it out to be.
Exactly. The estimates from Schaumburg, IL, are that approximately 90+% of the violations were for rolling past the stop line for a right on red. When the village decided to bow to public outcry and stop ticketing ROR, revenues plummeted to a point at which the cameras could not be sustained. The village got rid of them a couple of months later.
Even Naperville has ended their contract for much the same reason. They had to remove the two they had on IL-59 (road construction starts this spring), and in doing so, they admitted that the revenues from the other one at Ogden and Aurora Avenues were not enough to keep the system.
Quote from: Brandon on January 17, 2012, 07:13:48 AM
The estimates from Schaumburg, IL, are that approximately 90+% of the violations were for rolling past the stop line for a right on red. When the village decided to bow to public outcry and stop ticketing ROR, revenues plummeted to a point at which the cameras could not be sustained. The village got rid of them a couple of months later.
Even Naperville has ended their contract for much the same reason. They had to remove the two they had on IL-59 (road construction starts this spring), and in doing so, they admitted that the revenues from the other one at Ogden and Aurora Avenues were not enough to keep the system.
Moral of the story: Properly engineered roads and intersections don't invite red-light running. The National Motorists Association did a study of red-light cameras (which they vehemently oppose on several grounds) and found that in every case they studied (IIRC, about 60 or so), there were one or more engineering errors at each intersection which, if corrected, would drastically reduce the instances of red-light running.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 01:13:46 AMmore information during all phases, like a countdown timer for yellows - especially short yellows like 4 seconds on the 70mph section of TX-71
A four-second yellow in a 70mph zone is a disaster waiting to happen, and will essentially invite red-light running and/or rear-end collisions by the dozen. The usual rule of engineering traffic signals at an intersection is one second of yellow light per 10mph of legal speed. Those signals on TX-71 should be yellow for seven seconds, not four.
I'll bet there are a lot of skid marks at that TX-71 intersection.
Daytona Beach has the red light cameras.
Hey guys! Let's list every place that has them!
(Let's not.)
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 17, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
A four-second yellow in a 70mph zone is a disaster waiting to happen, and will essentially invite red-light running and/or rear-end collisions by the dozen. The usual rule of engineering traffic signals at an intersection is one second of yellow light per 10mph of legal speed. Those signals on TX-71 should be yellow for seven seconds, not four.
in general, I don't think traffic lights should be used when the speed of traffic is greater than about 60. not only are people less likely to know their car's own stopping distance (how often do you have to come from 75mph to a dead stop? much, much less frequently than from even 65), but with the variability in yellow-light durations, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
again, I would really like lights to come with countdown timers. at some intersections, I know I can use the pedestrian timer to give me a couple more hints of information, as even when it is inaccurate, it is inaccurate in my favor: namely, the light turns yellow either at "0", or several seconds after... it would never go from green to yellow while pedestrians are still crossing - a full red, pedestrians-only phase is orchestrated completely differently.
It would be useful to have a marking on the road, basically "if you're going the speed limit and the light turns yellow before you reach this, you can easily stop in time". The yellow should then be calibrated to give someone who just passed it more than enough time to get through.
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
It would be useful to have a marking on the road, basically "if you're going the speed limit and the light turns yellow before you reach this, you can easily stop in time". The yellow should then be calibrated to give someone who just passed it more than enough time to get through.
I have always thought that the boundary where dashed lane-separator lines turn into solid ones is the start of that point.
I do not consider this gospel of course, but it seems to be intuitively correct to a small margin of error... except in cases where the speed of traffic is over 60; in which situations the solid lines seem far too short.
maybe that's why I am so against high-speed signal-controlled intersections???
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
again, I would really like lights to come with countdown timers. at some intersections, I know I can use the pedestrian timer to give me a couple more hints of information, as even when it is inaccurate, it is inaccurate in my favor: namely, the light turns yellow either at "0", or several seconds after... it would never go from green to yellow while pedestrians are still crossing - a full red, pedestrians-only phase is orchestrated completely differently.
Not at all true, nationally. I've seen pedestrian timers extend through the yellow phase.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 04:07:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
It would be useful to have a marking on the road, basically "if you're going the speed limit and the light turns yellow before you reach this, you can easily stop in time". The yellow should then be calibrated to give someone who just passed it more than enough time to get through.
I have always thought that the boundary where dashed lane-separator lines turn into solid ones is the start of that point.
I like your idea and think the MUTCD should require it above 35 mph.
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 17, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Not at all true, nationally. I've seen pedestrian timers extend through the yellow phase.
I cannot recall an example of this occurring. I have seen the timerless flashing orange pedestrian "finish crossing, but do not start" extend through yellow, but never a white with a timer or an orange with a timer.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 06:19:16 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 17, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Not at all true, nationally. I've seen pedestrian timers extend through the yellow phase.
I cannot recall an example of this occurring. I have seen the timerless flashing orange pedestrian "finish crossing, but do not start" extend through yellow, but never a white with a timer or an orange with a timer.
Start off with Massachusetts. I may have also seen it in Wisconsin, but I may have also not.
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 17, 2012, 06:23:51 PM
Start off with Massachusetts. I may have also seen it in Wisconsin, but I may have also not.
wait, that sounds vaguely familiar.
do they ever extend the pedestrian time into the red? I just recall myself thinking "if I make it through the intersection before the timer hits 0, I am good to go" but clearly this isn't something I've consciously analyzed!
Sorry for multiple messages... In an effort to provide pertinent replies and not mix up information, I'm responding to different concepts in each post.
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 17, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
A four-second yellow in a 70mph zone is a disaster waiting to happen, and will essentially invite red-light running and/or rear-end collisions by the dozen. The usual rule of engineering traffic signals at an intersection is one second of yellow light per 10mph of legal speed. Those signals on TX-71 should be yellow for seven seconds, not four.
Actually, the commonly accepted standard for determining the change interval (yellow time) is the formula recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE):
Y = T + [1.47*S / (2D + 64.4*0.01*G)]
Where:
Y is the computed yellow change interval (s),
T is the "perception/reaction" time (s) [i.e. how long at onset of yellow it takes a driver to react to the yellow, often assumed as 1.0s],
S is the 85th percentile speed (mph) [in practice, often assumed to be the posted speed limit; sometimes approach speed is used if known],
D is an assumed deceleration rate (ft/s) [often assumed as 10ft/s], and
G is the uphill or downhill grade of the approach in percent.
Taking the situation described above, using typical values and assuming it is a flat approach (so the grade term drops to 0), the equation gives about 6.1 seconds of yellow time for the 70mph approach.
In any case, it is recommended to have a minimum yellow change interval of 3 seconds and I believe a maximum of 7 seconds.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 04:07:32 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
It would be useful to have a marking on the road, basically "if you're going the speed limit and the light turns yellow before you reach this, you can easily stop in time". The yellow should then be calibrated to give someone who just passed it more than enough time to get through.
I have always thought that the boundary where dashed lane-separator lines turn into solid ones is the start of that point.
I do not consider this gospel of course, but it seems to be intuitively correct to a small margin of error... except in cases where the speed of traffic is over 60; in which situations the solid lines seem far too short.
What NE2 describes basically would amount to solving the dilemma zone issue for motorists. Dilemma zone is a hard concept to explain in words without diagrams and the ability to elaborate. The basic idea is that, given a speed of arriving vehicle, there is an area some distance from the intersection that a vehicle can neither safely stop nor safely pass through the intersection at the onset of yellow. There are formulas for determining the safe passing and safe stopping distances which could eliminate the dilemma zone; these are based on speed and other factors. The problem with providing some kind of marking or sign for motorists and actually eliminating the dilemma zone is that it only works for the exact speed used in the calculation...any other speed above or below will render the warning useless by either being too conservative or too liberal, and drivers would end up disregarding them.
Using the point at which the broken line turns solid, as Jake suggests, can be a decent rule of thumb. However, it is not completely reliable as that distance is often set by DOT or agency standard without regard to signal timing (or, as is typical in Nevada, the solid line is rarely used in this manner for through lanes at signals).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
again, I would really like lights to come with countdown timers.
The problem with providing vehicular countdown timers (other than the fact that the MUTCD forbids them) is that doing so requires a green time to be fixed. This might work well for downtown grids and other areas operating fixed-time signals. However, many signals do not operate in this manner. With actuated signals (i.e. where detection is used), each signal phase has different components called a initial green, vehicle extension (also known as a passage gap) and maximum green. Each time the phase turns green, the signal must run for the initial green time plus extension. The extension is a short internal countdown timer. So if no vehicles are detected upstream during the first extension, the phase goes to red; however, if a vehicle is detected in that short time, that extension countdown resets and begins counting down again. The extension timer can continue resetting every time a new vehicle is detected upstream, up until the phase reaches the maximum green time at which point the phase is forced to turn yellow.
A visible vehicle countdown timer would be pretty useless if it counted down to any point in the cycle other than the beginning of the yellow. With the green time components described above, a phase's green time could be as little as 5 seconds or as long as 40 seconds or more. There is no way for a signal to know exactly when it will turn yellow using these settings. This is the main reason why such countdowns are not in use--there are other factors as well, such as emergency preemption.
Quote from: Upside down frog in a triangle on January 17, 2012, 06:11:41 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
at some intersections, I know I can use the pedestrian timer to give me a couple more hints of information, as even when it is inaccurate, it is inaccurate in my favor: namely, the light turns yellow either at "0", or several seconds after... it would never go from green to yellow while pedestrians are still crossing - a full red, pedestrians-only phase is orchestrated completely differently.
Not at all true, nationally. I've seen pedestrian timers extend through the yellow phase.
The pedestrian countdown timer can be a reasonable substitute for a vehicle countdown, but cannot be relied on 100%. Again, this is something that depends on the controller settings and agency policy. Many agencies use the safe route of having the "0" appear at the onset of yellow (this allows additional time for pedestrians to clear), but it is MUTCD-acceptable to have the countdown last through the end of yellow. It all depends on the agency's policy regarding the relationship between pedestrian clearance time and mandatory buffer time, and whether these overlap. There's also the fact that the signal could count down and end way before yellow...that could result from green extensions (as discussed above) or skipping a side street phase.
You also have to make sure you look at the proper pedestrian signal head. Generally this is the one controlling the crosswalk adjacent to the through lanes you are traveling in. Looking at the opposite side may steer you wrong in lead-lag operations (but can also be a bit of an indication as to when the lagging left turn will start).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 06:37:49 PM
do they ever extend the pedestrian time into the red? I just recall myself thinking "if I make it through the intersection before the timer hits 0, I am good to go" but clearly this isn't something I've consciously analyzed!
No, pedestrian time is not extended into the red. According to the 2009 MUTCD, the end of the countdown must be followed by a 3-second minimum buffer period before conflicting traffic is released. According to Figure 4E-9, the pedestrian countdown must terminate by start of red for adjacent through traffic at the latest.
Yes, you are generally correct in thinking that you will be good to go if you make it through the intersection before the timer hits 0. The only complication is whether you're in a "restrictive yellow" state (i.e. illegal to enter on yellow) *and* the countdown continues past onset of yellow.
Quote from: roadfro on January 18, 2012, 04:35:48 AM
The problem with providing vehicular countdown timers (other than the fact that the MUTCD forbids them) is that doing so requires a green time to be fixed. This might work well for downtown grids and other areas operating fixed-time signals. However, many signals do not operate in this manner. With actuated signals (i.e. where detection is used), each signal phase has different components called a initial green, vehicle extension (also known as a passage gap) and maximum green. Each time the phase turns green, the signal must run for the initial green time plus extension. The extension is a short internal countdown timer. So if no vehicles are detected upstream during the first extension, the phase goes to red; however, if a vehicle is detected in that short time, that extension countdown resets and begins counting down again.
here I had thought it worked in the opposite manner: the light stays default on green until traffic is detected that is due to come in conflict with the main through traffic: side street traffic, someone wishing to make a protected left turn off the mainline, or a pedestrian pushing the "let me cross" button.
QuoteA visible vehicle countdown timer would be pretty useless if it counted down to any point in the cycle other than the beginning of the yellow. With the green time components described above, a phase's green time could be as little as 5 seconds or as long as 40 seconds or more. There is no way for a signal to know exactly when it will turn yellow using these settings. This is the main reason why such countdowns are not in use--there are other factors as well, such as emergency preemption.
my idea for a solution hinges on my previous assumption about what triggers the change (see paragraph above) and would involve the green timer being off (displaying no number) - except when the trigger from the conflicting has been established.
from my observation, the mainline light changes to yellow within about 5 seconds of the side street traffic appearing, so once this 5 second time has been established,
then display a green count. until then, display no count to indicate that there is no plan for the light to change color.
similarly, the side-street (or turning traffic) red should display no countdown until the conflicting vehicle has successfully been detected - at which point, the red light displays 11 seconds (or whatever the combined total is of the mainline's remaining green, yellow, and then the all-red safety margin)
again, that assumption hinges on the conflicting traffic triggering the light change, as opposed to the absence of mainline traffic... but that assumption seems to jive well with my observations. so maybe I'm misreading your first paragraph? can you shed some light on why I'm possibly interpreting this incorrectly?
Quote from: roadfro on January 18, 2012, 04:50:02 AM
The only complication is whether you're in a "restrictive yellow" state (i.e. illegal to enter on yellow) *and* the countdown continues past onset of yellow.
honestly, I cannot for the life of me remember which states those are. that sounds like a fairly brainless rule in general - what if I were traveling 45mph, and I found myself two feet outside of the intersection when the light turned yellow? Am I expected to come to a dead stop from 45mph in two feet?
I thought not.
I've never, ever, not once, been pulled over for entering an intersection on yellow. I would assume that would be the "dickness of last resort" when a jurisdiction gets really, really broke but everyone is suddenly coming to a complete stop at four-way stop signs and obeying every speed limit to the letter.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 11:50:48 AM
Quote from: roadfro on January 18, 2012, 04:50:02 AM
The only complication is whether you're in a "restrictive yellow" state (i.e. illegal to enter on yellow) *and* the countdown continues past onset of yellow.
honestly, I cannot for the life of me remember which states those are. that sounds like a fairly brainless rule in general - what if I were traveling 45mph, and I found myself two feet outside of the intersection when the light turned yellow? Am I expected to come to a dead stop from 45mph in two feet?
I thought not.
I've never, ever, not once, been pulled over for entering an intersection on yellow. I would assume that would be the "dickness of last resort" when a jurisdiction gets really, really broke but everyone is suddenly coming to a complete stop at four-way stop signs and obeying every speed limit to the letter.
The law is that it's illegal to enter on yellow if you can safely stop. In other states, you can enter on yellow no matter what.
The only time my wife has been pulled over since we've been married has been for entering an intersection on a yellow light. Princeton, Minnesota. We were so ticked.
Quote from: NE2 on January 18, 2012, 12:08:41 PM
The law is that it's illegal to enter on yellow if you can safely stop. In other states, you can enter on yellow no matter what.
seems like a hell of a judgment call on the part of the witnessing officer. I'd imagine most of them would enforce it as "no drastic and sudden acceleration to make the yellow".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
seems like a hell of a judgment call on the part of the witnessing officer. I'd imagine most of them would enforce it as "no drastic and sudden acceleration to make the yellow".
Let alone a hell of a judgment call for an automated machine owned by a private for-profit corporation to be making.
-Tarkus
Quote from: Tarkus on January 18, 2012, 05:08:01 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
seems like a hell of a judgment call on the part of the witnessing officer. I'd imagine most of them would enforce it as "no drastic and sudden acceleration to make the yellow".
Let alone a hell of a judgment call for an automated machine owned by a private for-profit corporation to be making.
-Tarkus
The machines don't make the distinction, a human does. Depending on your jurisdiction, either an employee of the company or a police officer review the video or still photos and then decide whether to ticket or not.
Are there any that get you for entering on yellow in the first place?
Quote from: SidS1045 on January 14, 2012, 10:51:45 PM
Absolutely WRONG. The police office was not a witness and was not anywhere near the camera installation/intersection, so he/she has no first-hand knowledge of the facts and cannot lawfully accuse the alleged violator of anything.
Just keep in mind that famous line from "Jerry Maguire:" "Follow the money."
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. The witness is a police officer who uses the video of someone running a red light as evidence to issue the citation. Why would video evidence be valid in other cases but not red light running?
Quote from: realjd on January 19, 2012, 08:20:44 AM
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong. The witness is a police officer who uses the video of someone running a red light as evidence to issue the citation. Why would video evidence be valid in other cases but not red light running?
It's not always an actual police officer. At least with a lot of photo radar situations, it's either a retired officer or an employee of the vendor who has been "deputized" (Redflex employees often run photo radar vans in AZ). Sometimes, if the sheer volume of tickets coming in is more than a department can handle, the police department will hire clerks to handle camera violations. Vendors have also been known to forge signatures. ATS recently got in hot water for doing this in Spokane. Redflex has also been known to send so-called "snitch tickets" out that have NOT been vetted by a police officer.
Also, in the case of video being valid in situations of, say, someone stealing from or robbing a convenience store, there are some key differences. 1) The camera is not being operated to produce traffic fine money. Instead, it's deterring a criminal offense--theft. 2) The camera is usually owned by the store itself or an outside security company who is being paid on a monthly basis, again, not getting a slice of some revenue pie based on how effective the camera is from a municipal body. 3) It's usually not the sole evidence being used in such a case. 4) The camera is not being triggered by some sort of arbitrary event (e.g. driving over some sensor above some arbitrary speed determined by the vendor).
I usually tend to expect a yellow light to last about 3 seconds no matter what and react accordingly. It always gets me when I'm on a higher-speed road and the yellow phase is prolonged (especially considering Connecticut and New York do not prolong their yellows on such roads). On multiple occasions on US 1 in New Jersey I've sworn I was going to be running a "pink light" only to find it still yellow by the time I went under it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 18, 2012, 11:48:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on January 18, 2012, 04:35:48 AM
The problem with providing vehicular countdown timers (other than the fact that the MUTCD forbids them) is that doing so requires a green time to be fixed. This might work well for downtown grids and other areas operating fixed-time signals. However, many signals do not operate in this manner. With actuated signals (i.e. where detection is used), each signal phase has different components called a initial green, vehicle extension (also known as a passage gap) and maximum green. Each time the phase turns green, the signal must run for the initial green time plus extension. The extension is a short internal countdown timer. So if no vehicles are detected upstream during the first extension, the phase goes to red; however, if a vehicle is detected in that short time, that extension countdown resets and begins counting down again.
here I had thought it worked in the opposite manner: the light stays default on green until traffic is detected that is due to come in conflict with the main through traffic: side street traffic, someone wishing to make a protected left turn off the mainline, or a pedestrian pushing the "let me cross" button.
Well, you're not incorrect in your initial thoughts. The difference is what type of detection/operation mode the signal is running. If a signal is running in a "free" mode, it basically serves calls for any direction as they are received. So if the signal defaults to through traffic on the main street, a call on the side street, protected left, conflicting pedestrian button push, etc. would prompt the signal to cycle to serve that conflicting call. It would be possible to operate a countdown in this mode, but the amount of time on the countdown would likely be rather short as to not provide sufficient information to the motorist.
In my reply above, I was describing a semi-actuated coordinated signal operation. "Semi-actuated" meaning that not all signal phases rely on detection in order to be served. In these cases, the signal operates on a set cycle length and typically has default phases for a major street as above. However, the minimum green, extension and other settings are in place to maximize the amount of green time for the main street during one cycle for achieving platoon progression for coordination purposes. That extending of green phase for the major street doesn't allow for the countdown due to randomness of arriving vehicles--a countdown timer could be used, but you'd really only be able to display about 2 seconds on it before onset of yellow, so again it's not useful.
Quote
QuoteA visible vehicle countdown timer would be pretty useless if it counted down to any point in the cycle other than the beginning of the yellow. With the green time components described above, a phase's green time could be as little as 5 seconds or as long as 40 seconds or more. There is no way for a signal to know exactly when it will turn yellow using these settings. This is the main reason why such countdowns are not in use--there are other factors as well, such as emergency preemption.
my idea for a solution hinges on my previous assumption about what triggers the change (see paragraph above) and would involve the green timer being off (displaying no number) - except when the trigger from the conflicting has been established.
from my observation, the mainline light changes to yellow within about 5 seconds of the side street traffic appearing, so once this 5 second time has been established, then display a green count. until then, display no count to indicate that there is no plan for the light to change color.
similarly, the side-street (or turning traffic) red should display no countdown until the conflicting vehicle has successfully been detected - at which point, the red light displays 11 seconds (or whatever the combined total is of the mainline's remaining green, yellow, and then the all-red safety margin)
again, that assumption hinges on the conflicting traffic triggering the light change, as opposed to the absence of mainline traffic... but that assumption seems to jive well with my observations. so maybe I'm misreading your first paragraph? can you shed some light on why I'm possibly interpreting this incorrectly?
Again, it goes back the signal mode of operation. It seems that what you're describing is more of a signal operating in a free or similar mode. In medium and larger signal networks, an actuated operation is ultimately more efficient in moving traffic. The countdown idea doesn't mesh well with this.
EDIT: Fixed quoting
gotcha; I had no idea traffic lights ran that way. I had thought there was only a triggered or a timed operation, nothing in between.
I'd still take that two extra seconds of "green is about to turn yellow" notification, though. I don't believe that would cause me to think "too much information!" while driving.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2012, 11:10:04 AM
gotcha; I had no idea traffic lights ran that way. I had thought there was only a triggered or a timed operation, nothing in between.
I'd still take that two extra seconds of "green is about to turn yellow" notification, though. I don't believe that would cause me to think "too much information!" while driving.
A little off on "free" operation, though. You can't do pedestrian countdown, because
countdown length is constant by time of day. As is Flashing DW length, all red time, etc. It's all dictated by the dimensions of the intersection and approach speeds. What happens in free operation is instant change as soon as a call is detected. Generally, the ped heads will be all solid DW during that time, and will only go to Walk phase if explicitly called. (In other words, there's no minimum time, even for the major through street.) You wouldn't actually get any advance notification. If you see a car approaching the intersection, expect the yellow.
Quote from: Upside down frog in a triangle on January 20, 2012, 11:33:27 PM
A little off on "free" operation, though. You can't do pedestrian countdown, because countdown length is constant by time of day. As is Flashing DW length, all red time, etc. It's all dictated by the dimensions of the intersection and approach speeds.
You
can set a Flashing Don't Walk/pedestrian countdown (same thing) or an all-red vehicle clearance to be different at different times of day. These usually don't happen because there are required (FDW) or recommended (all-red) minimum times that there is little benefit to changing between timing plans.
All-red can actually vary by individual phase at an intersection, which in my limited non-professional experience, is more common than varying by time of day.
Quote from: roadfro on January 23, 2012, 06:50:33 AM
Quote from: Upside down frog in a triangle on January 20, 2012, 11:33:27 PM
A little off on "free" operation, though. You can't do pedestrian countdown, because countdown length is constant by time of day. As is Flashing DW length, all red time, etc. It's all dictated by the dimensions of the intersection and approach speeds.
You can set a Flashing Don't Walk/pedestrian countdown (same thing) or an all-red vehicle clearance to be different at different times of day. These usually don't happen because there are required (FDW) or recommended (all-red) minimum times that there is little benefit to changing between timing plans.
All-red can actually vary by individual phase at an intersection, which in my limited non-professional experience, is more common than varying by time of day.
Yes. I think what I ought to have said is, there are certain minimums that cannot be violated, regardless of operation type. They can certainly be exceeded, although generally all-red and yellow times would remain constant throughout the day because being too long is almost as bad as too short.
The city of Dubuque, Iowa was recently discussing putting in red light cameras. It's been causing quite a stir in the city. But just this last week, Iowa's Governor Branstad told the city that he will not allow the city to install them. Wish I could link to a story about it in the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, but the paper's website www.thonline.com requires subscription.
The City of Edgewood, FL has the initial photo I used to start this thread. All three cameras are at intersections where RTOR are allowed, but the warning sign that informs motorists of the locations being photo enforced claims it includes right turns. There is no special turn lane as right turns have to be made from the through lane. Its obvious here, that the camera cannot make a distinction, so does that meant right turns on red are illegal then? There is no " NO TURN ON RED" assembly either, so legally under FL Law it is allowed!
Another way, the camera is useless.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on January 25, 2012, 03:19:55 PM
The city of Dubuque, Iowa was recently discussing putting in red light cameras. It's been causing quite a stir in the city. But just this last week, Iowa's Governor Branstad told the city that he will not allow the city to install them. Wish I could link to a story about it in the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, but the paper's website www.thonline.com requires subscription.
It's also worth noting that there is a bill in the Iowa legislature right now that if passed, would effectively ban the use of automated photo enforcement statewide. So far, the bill is going through pretty smoothly.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 08, 2012, 08:08:42 PM
The City of Edgewood, FL has the initial photo I used to start this thread. All three cameras are at intersections where RTOR are allowed, but the warning sign that informs motorists of the locations being photo enforced claims it includes right turns. There is no special turn lane as right turns have to be made from the through lane. Its obvious here, that the camera cannot make a distinction, so does that meant right turns on red are illegal then? There is no " NO TURN ON RED" assembly either, so legally under FL Law it is allowed!
Another way, the camera is useless.
Technically speaking, in those situations, it is still legal to make an RTOR, but depending on how the camera is set up, there's a good chance you're going to get flashed making a legal maneuver, though they are in theory supposed to throw them out (that doesn't always happen, though). Some vendors (esp. Redflex) claim to have made a "technological breakthrough" whereby they can more accurately ticket right-turning red-light running with their newer equipment (which they've rapidly deployed), but the technology is inherently flawed in that whether or not you get flashed is determined by some rather screwy algorithms relating to the embedded sensors. There's so much of a gray area involved that even if you fully stop at a red light, and make a legal RTOR, you can still get a ticket, and the camera vendors make boatloads of money being anal about RTORs.
The camera in that image looks to be provided by American Gatso, a US division of the Dutch camera conglomerate Gatso, which also frequently supplies equipment to Xerox/ACS. From what I know of Xerox/ACS's use of that equipment, it's pretty low-tech and often poorly-calibrated--there's often a lot of defects to the tickets (see
here, and scroll down to "Defect #5-ACS Camera" (http://www.highwayrobbery.net/indexExpanded.htm)). The City Council minutes discussion the contract approval (see
here (http://edgewood-fl.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B8816F762-510A-4ACE-B6ED-44DD6CDAAE48%7D/uploads/CC_02_11_2011.pdf)) seem to show that Gatso is running the equipment
themselves, rather than another vendor like Xerox/ACS using their equipment.
Given all this, I'd be very hesitant to make an RTOR at a camera intersection, mainly as I don't trust the vendors, or their equipment.
In other news, because of improper dealings in handling camera violations, Atlanta, Georgia is being
forced to shut down its red light camera program (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3711.asp).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6799126768/in/photostream
Check this one out. A camera that takes pictures of anyone running the light, but a YIELD sign says its okay to pass through when right turning on red after yielding.
Things That Get Your Blood Boiling:
The City of New Orleans recently forgave all traffic camera tickets for all city employees. :no: :banghead: :angry:
Quote from: brownpelican on March 09, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Things That Get Your Blood Boiling:
The City of New Orleans recently forgave all traffic camera tickets for all city employees. :no: :banghead: :angry:
city employees are a higher classification of human being than you or I could ever dream of being. forgiving their traffic tickets is merely the first step in rightfully acknowledging their divinity and their rule.
Quote from: brownpelican on March 09, 2012, 12:09:18 AM
Things That Get Your Blood Boiling:
The City of New Orleans recently forgave all traffic camera tickets for all city employees. :no: :banghead: :angry:
For all city employees or for city vehicles? That makes a big difference.
Big flap now in Chicago over both the red light cameras and speed cameras that the city wants to put up. Apparently the mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, lied about the statistics when lobbying for the law and lied about his relationship with Redflex.
Mayor's speed camera stats sketchy (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-speed-cameras-statistics-20120314,0,2367484.story)
QuoteDenied the city's research, the Tribune performed its own analysis using city traffic data provided to the federal government and came to a very different and less dramatic conclusion.
Instead of the 60 percent reduction the mayor touted, the Tribune's analysis of accidents for the same locations revealed a nearly 26 percent reduction – one that mirrored a broader accident trend in the city and across the nation. The difference? The city said fatalities dropped from 53 to 21 in the targeted zones, but the federal statistics showed the before-and-after numbers were 47 and 35.
Mayor's speed cameras would help political ally (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-resolute-emanuel-speed-cameras-20120313,0,1390068.story)
QuoteWhen Rahm Emanuel was a first-time candidate for Congress, Greg Goldner was behind him, quietly marshaling the patronage troops that helped get him elected. When Emanuel ran for mayor, Goldner was there again, doling out campaign cash to elect Emanuel-friendly aldermen to City Council.
And when the rookie mayor was looking for community support for his school reform agenda, there was Goldner, working behind the scenes with the ministers who backed Emanuel's plan.
Now, it turns out the longtime allies share another interest – the installation of automated speed cameras in Chicago.
As consultant to the firm that already supplies Chicago its red-light cameras, Goldner is the architect of a nationwide campaign to promote his client's expansion prospects. That client, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., is well-positioned to make tens of millions of dollars from Emanuel's controversial plan to convert many of the red-light cameras into automated speed cameras.
The man is a lying sack of shit claiming that the cameras are to "save children".