Traffic deaths up in cities that turn off red-light cameras

[SidS1045]

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.

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[kalvado]

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....

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[djsekani]

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.

[kalvado]

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...

[UCFKnights]

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?

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[Duke87]

It sounds like your concern is more about government corruption than red-light cameras.

Yes.

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).

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.

PS, 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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[UCFKnights]

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.

[kalvado]

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..

[hbelkins]

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.

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...

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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).

[kalvado]

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... 

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

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.

[kalvado]

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...

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. 

[vdeane]

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.