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

[jeffandnicole]

On a 55 mph roadway, a yellow phase should be at least 5.5 seconds.  If the yellow is only programmed for 4 seconds, then the light is programmed incorrectly.

Basic driving instruction says to reduce speed on wet roadways.  If you can't stop in time because you fear you will skid thru an intersection, you are indeed driving too fast for conditions.

I can stop in time - or go across the intersection in time - with clear understanding that all-red phase is a safety margin which sometimes may get used for purposes other than writing tickets. 

Actually, your statement (which you conveniently cut out from the quoted response) was that you enter the intersection within the first second of the all-red phase...and due to a distraction at that.

The all-red phase is there to clear out the intersection of existing traffic, not to allow new traffic to enter.  I'm not exactly agreeing with VA on his remarks, but clearly you're using the all-red phase as an excuse to enter and then claiming you shouldn't be given a ticket.  And doing it "like" once a month isn't much of a justification for running a red light either.  Honestly, if the light is timed for 4 seconds, not 5.5 seconds or greater, the issue is the light itself and should be retimed.  Honestly, I'd rather see video of the light in action, because usually yellow light timing is measured in 10th of a second time intervals.  There's a lot of time between 4 & 5 seconds, for example.

[AlexandriaVA]

I really couldn't care less what was or wasn't in the drivers mind. All I know is that I was hit by a car that didn't stop when it was supposed to stop. According to you, that's a moot point. I beg to differ but what do I know?

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop, which would put me in a much better position than what happened, which is where the driver didn't come to a complete stop.

[kalvado]

I really couldn't care less what was or wasn't in the drivers mind. All I know is that I was hit by a car that didn't stop when it was supposed to stop. According to you, that's a moot point. I beg to differ but what do I know?

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop, which would put me in a much better position than what happened, which is where the driver didn't come to a complete stop.

Just to clarify, what was the situation? were you crossing the street where traffic was facing red light, or were you crossing a perpendicular street?

[jeffandnicole]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

[AlexandriaVA]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).

I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).

The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.

The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.

[AlexandriaVA]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.

As far as the cameras making money, I still see it as all a bunch of red herrings by opponents. If the cameras make money, then it's proof that they're just revenue collection for the city. If they lose money, then it's proof that they're a drain on the city and should be removed. Cameras can't win...slick arguments by the opponents.

Thus, the issue about revenue is moot to me. After all, most public services "lose" money. However, it has been determined by the populace or its leaders that such public services serve a public benefit which warrants their operation, be it schools, or hospitals, etc. I would put cameras in that realm as well.

That is, so long as you place a value on people not being hit by cars or getting into car accidents. I suspect some people here are more concerned about slow travel speeds than public safety.

[jeffandnicole]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.

Good point.  Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights.  That should convince people not to do it.  After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.

Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too.  But I'm sure you don't do that either.  Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.

Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines.  You want to deter people from doing something.  At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live.  No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.

[kalvado]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).

I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).

The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.

The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.

Still everything hangs on assumption driver either did see you and choose not to stop -  or didn't see you, but would see you after coming to a full stop. Could easily miss you at a full stop as well..
Not to say driver is not 100% at fault, but I always try to make eye contact in such situations - both as driver and as pedestrian...

[AlexandriaVA]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).

I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).

The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.

The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.

Still everything hangs on assumption driver either did see you and choose not to stop -  or didn't see you, but would see you after coming to a full stop. Could easily miss you at a full stop as well..
Not to say driver is not 100% at fault, but I always try to make eye contact in such situations - both as driver and as pedestrian...

I mean the driver only made a rolling right-on-red and hit me in a situation where the driver shouldn't have made a right-on-red in the first place ("No Right On Red When Pedestrians Are Present").

And I still don't know why you're hanging on this notion that things wouldn't have been better if the driver hadn't stopped first.

[AlexandriaVA]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.

Good point.  Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights.  That should convince people not to do it.  After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.

Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too.  But I'm sure you don't do that either.  Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.

Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines.  You want to deter people from doing something.  At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live.  No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.

Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.

[kalvado]

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8400618,-77.1056689,3a,75y,221.38h,76.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sURI-PGv7sPgy1g_I6LNG1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is the view that the driver had (note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights).

I was walking from right to left across the two-lane road (so, from where those two people were sitting across the street where the manhole cover is).

The motorist had a red light, the traffic on the four-lane road had green lights. I, as a pedestrian, had a corresponding green light.

The motorist, I presume, was looking back to see if there was a gap in the traffic to shoot out onto the four-lane road. It shouldn't have mattered, as my presence at the intersection should have invalidated the motorist's ability to make a right-on-red.

Still everything hangs on assumption driver either did see you and choose not to stop -  or didn't see you, but would see you after coming to a full stop. Could easily miss you at a full stop as well..
Not to say driver is not 100% at fault, but I always try to make eye contact in such situations - both as driver and as pedestrian...

I mean the driver only made a rolling right-on-red and hit me in a situation where the driver shouldn't have made a right-on-red in the first place ("No Right On Red When Pedestrians Are Present").

And I still don't know why you're hanging on this notion that things wouldn't have been better if the driver hadn't stopped first.

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you would be seen if driver came to a full stop? No, you cannot.
As a matter of fact, a car once made a contact with my leg (you cannot call 0.5 MPH "accident" or "collision") after that car was stopped for a a while, and driver was looking for a gap in traffic. I still feel bad for that lady, she was very scared - and I made a real angry look on my face while walking away..
My point is that following a letter of the law doesn't guarantee awareness.

[kalvado]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.

Good point.  Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights.  That should convince people not to do it.  After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.

Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too.  But I'm sure you don't do that either.  Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.

Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines.  You want to deter people from doing something.  At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live.  No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.

Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.

Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...

[AlexandriaVA]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.

Good point.  Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights.  That should convince people not to do it.  After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.

Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too.  But I'm sure you don't do that either.  Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.

Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines.  You want to deter people from doing something.  At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live.  No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.

Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.

Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...

Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.

https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm

[freebrickproductions]

[hotdogPi]

To bring it back, had there been a red light camera that was well-known or marked, I'm pretty sure the driver would have come to a complete stop...

If that was true, no one would be making money from these cameras.

Since these cameras are bringing in millions to each town they are in, clearly people aren't stopping just because a red light camera is there.

If the fine is too low to act as a deterrent, then raise the fine. It would be no different than if a cop or camera was enforcing it...if people knew that a being cited for running a red light was really going to hit them, they probably wouldn't do it.

Good point.  Let's say life in prison for those that run red lights.  That should convince people not to do it.  After all, it works well as a deterrent for those that are considering murdering someone.

Then again, let's mandate life in prison for those that jaywalk too.  But I'm sure you don't do that either.  Or, hey, life in prison for someone who going 46 in a 45 zone.

Obviously, there's a reasonableness factor in setting fines.  You want to deter people from doing something.  At the same time, you can't create a situation where they suddenly can't afford to live.  No doubt the guy that hit you didn't intend on doing that...but you can't fine him a million dollars either for the accident.

Yeah, because I was calling for life sentences for red-light runners. Since we're reaching the point of strawman arguments, I'll cease posting here since I don't think there's really much else to be discussed. I'm guessing that this discussion reflects popular sentiment around the country, which might explain why automobile-related death rates are so high in this country.

Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...

I checked Wikipedia, and 1.8% of preventable deaths in the United States are caused by car/truck collisions. "Preventable" includes things like smoking (which is much higher on the list).

[kalvado]

Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...

Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.

https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm

Look at statistics from the other perspective: 17.4/100k world average traffic mortality, 10.6 US. And comparison to Europe is not very fair - US is very car-centric in terms of transportation, EU is much denser packed with much more options of living without a car.

It definitely suck when you are the one of those 10.6 people (or if you don't  make into those mortality numbers since doctors did their job). But on a grand scheme of things, this is not the deal breaker. And numbers are going down..

[AlexandriaVA]

Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...

Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.

https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm

Look at statistics from the other perspective: 17.4/100k world average traffic mortality, 10.6 US. And comparison to Europe is not very fair - US is very car-centric in terms of transportation, EU is much denser packed with much more options of living without a car.

It definitely suck when you are the one of those 10.6 people (or if you don't  make into those mortality numbers since doctors did their job). But on a grand scheme of things, this is not the deal breaker. And numbers are going down..

Much more relevant to compare among developed countries, namely OECD member states.

[kalvado]

Automobile related deaths are NOT high in US. Actually they are pretty low, considering role of cars in the country...

Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.

https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm

Look at statistics from the other perspective: 17.4/100k world average traffic mortality, 10.6 US. And comparison to Europe is not very fair - US is very car-centric in terms of transportation, EU is much denser packed with much more options of living without a car.

It definitely suck when you are the one of those 10.6 people (or if you don't  make into those mortality numbers since doctors did their job). But on a grand scheme of things, this is not the deal breaker. And numbers are going down..

Much more relevant to compare among developed countries, namely OECD member states.

And question is how you normalize the data. Per population, per vehicle, per traveled mileage.. Gap still exist in per-mile data, but it is much less pronounced (which is to say that US has large land mass and more miles per vehicle).
As for pedestrian fatalities - I  wouldn't be surprised if it is another altitude problem. People often get very upset when some numbers - like 1/3 of killed pedestrians were drunk - are brought up. Not to mention inability of US to properly use and maintain things like underground / bridge crossings..

[vdeane]

It doesn't help that pedestrians are scared of crossing under something and too lazy to cross a bridge over something.

[djsekani]

As someone who drives for a living, I'm well aware that there are times when you need to make a judgement call. Not coming to a complete stop before making a right turn on red is not one of those times. There's no excuse for that other than impatience. The idea that some of you are actually trying to blame a pedestrian for getting hit in that scenario is, quite frankly, sickening.

My one red-light camera ticket was actually for this exact thing, not coming to a complete stop before making a right turn on red. I got the ticket thrown out on a technicality, but I'm not going around acting like I did nothing wrong. I actually make a greater effort now to not make the same mistake in the future. Maybe I'm rare in that I value safety and not getting a ticket more than getting to my destination five minutes sooner, but I've witnessed so much stupidity on the roads that has resulted in damage and injury that those five minutes potentially saved just aren't worth it.

[Duke87]

If a law should be repealed, then the legislative process or judicial process exists for a reason (ideally the legislative process, to remove or alter the bad law). But I can't get behind this idea of some laws are to be governed with more sincerity than others; particularly when it pertains to the rules of the road.

I am all in favor of enforcing the law as written, provided the law as written is reasonable. If the law is unreasonable, however, then enforcement of it is by definition oppressive. And no, I am not saying "don't enforce the law because it's unreasonable". I am saying "change the law so it is reasonable".

note the "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign on the stoplights

Ugh, I despise the use of the vague and ambiguous "when pedestrians are present" phrase. At what location or distance from the intersection does a pedestrian cease being "present"? For that matter, does it depend only on the pedestrian's position, or does the pedestrian's velocity also matter?

If a time of day based prohibition doesn't do the trick at least make it say something like "no turn on red when pedestrians in crosswalk" or "no turn on red when pedestrians within 10 feet of intersection". This way it removes the ambiguity.


As for the incident at hand, I am going to have to echo the sentiment that the drivers' primary error was failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian. I do not believe he should have been compelled to come to a complete stop, no matter what. I do, however, expect that as a licensed driver he should have the ability to judge when it is, and when it is not, necessary to come to a complete stop in order to avoid causing a collision. The driver failed to judge the situation properly and a law allowing rolling stops would not change that or make him any less at fault.

[SidS1045]

Not even close...Western Europe eats our lunch; we're more on the level of the Former Soviet Union.

https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm

Not even close. The oecd.org site uses fatalities per population as the basis, and that does not take into account the fact that there are fewer drivers per capita in many other countries.  A more realistic measure is fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles.  Unfortunately most countries don't appear to keep such stats, but I did find a graphic from Car & Driver magazine with some stats from 2008:

Iceland:  0.63 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles
England:  0.81
Germany:  1.06
USA:  1.13
Czech Republic:  3.15
Korea (assuming this is South Korea):  3.24

Within the US, per IIHS and NHTSA, 2014 stats:
Massachusetts:  0.57
South Carolina:  1.65
(Those are the two extremes.)
USA overall in 2014:  1.08

[hbelkins]

It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.

Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.

[kalvado]

It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.

Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.

this is becoming interesting. If there is a 4-lane street to cross, it may be of the order of 60 feet across stop line to stop line (including parking/bicycle lanes etc)
another 17 feet is for a longer car like Chevy Impala. 30 MPH limit is 44 fps, and since it is upper limit lets make it 40.
So 2 seconds between front bumper crossing stop line on one side and rear bumper crossing stop line on the other. 3.25 second stopping time @ 30 MPH and 0.4g acceleration, 130 feet stopping distance for 1.6 s travel time. Plus 0.3 human response = 3.9 second from seeing yellow in unable to stop location and clearing the intersection. That is ZERO tolerance with minimum 3.9 yellow - typical for 30 MPH street....

Now think about driving a bus or a truck...

[Brandon]

It's not illegal to enter on a yellow, so I have no qualms doing so.

Not sure how it is in other states, but the Kentucky driver's manual used to explicitly state that it was illegal to be in the intersection when the light turns red. Doesn't matter if you entered on yellow and the light turned red while you were passing through it, or if you had pulled up past the stop bar to make a left turn on a permitted green (or I guess now a FYA). You're breaking the law either way.

In Illinois, you can sit in the intersection all day till it clears after the signal has turned red.  As long as your front wheels cross the stop line on yellow, you can proceed through the intersection.