Red light cameras = more traffic congestion

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/49/4943.asp

The cities are more interested in revenue than traffic flow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/49/4943.asp

The cities are more interested in revenue than traffic flow.

Okay, so cars not running red lights is considered causing "congestion"?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/49/4943.asp

The cities are more interested in revenue than traffic flow.

Okay, so cars not running red lights is considered causing "congestion"?

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, so cars not running red lights is considered causing "congestion"?

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

90 cars an hour! That is 1.5 cars a minute. So at one intersection, there is potential one full car and a sheared off half a car stuck at a light because of cameras every minute. This will kill us all. Loren was right! We are all fucking dead.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

90 cars an hour! That is 1.5 cars a minute. So at one intersection, there is potential one full car and a sheared off half a car stuck at a light because of cameras every minute. This will kill us all. Loren was right! We are all fucking dead.

Actually that one car will slow the other cars behind it when the light turns green.

 

[funinspace]

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

90 cars an hour! That is 1.5 cars a minute. So at one intersection, there is potential one full car and a sheared off half a car stuck at a light because of cameras every minute. This will kill us all. Loren was right! We are all fucking dead.

And how many cars are delayed, when someone runs a yellow-red light, and causes an accident? That should blow the...OMZ a delay...meter out of the park for a month or so...

 

[scombrid]

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

90 cars an hour! That is 1.5 cars a minute. So at one intersection, there is potential one full car and a sheared off half a car stuck at a light because of cameras every minute. This will kill us all. Loren was right! We are all fucking dead.

That is actually a pretty significant difference on a road that is already running at capacity. If it pushes the road over capacity then it will cause cascading backups.

Lights around here are not synchronized and subordinate crossing traffic is often given too much time which unnecessarily backs up the main. Frustrated drivers then run the red lights and cause bad crashes. Cameras aren't a good fix for that. Spending money upgrading the signaling system and increasing the capacity of the local roads would be better.

 

[Derec]

And how many cars are delayed, when someone runs a yellow-red light, and causes an accident? That should blow the...OMZ a delay...meter out of the park for a month or so...

Somebody running a yellow-red light is not likely to cause an accident because cross-traffic has not been released yet. On the other hand, somebody slamming on their breaks to avoid running the red light even for a fraction of a second (as that already triggers the camera) has greater risk to be read ended than to cause an accident with cross-traffic.
Most red light accidents happen when a car runs a red light that has been red long enough for cross-traffic to have green light (and especially if cross-traffic is going through the intersection at speed, rather than starting to move).

 

[Colonel Sanders]

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

90 cars an hour! That is 1.5 cars a minute. So at one intersection, there is potential one full car and a sheared off half a car stuck at a light because of cameras every minute. This will kill us all. Loren was right! We are all fucking dead.

Actually, in Los Angeles and most of California, they stopped with the red light cameras because the number of rear-end collisions in intersections skyrocketed.

From the article:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-n...ng-stopped-across-southern-california-country

Declining revenues, a nonsupportive court system and increases in the number of accidents instead of decreases, are the major reasons why cities have pulled the plug on red-light cameras in the past two years.

Some city council members and city traffic engineers interviewed said photo enforcement is causing more rear-end accidents because people are scared when they see a yellow light at a camera-controlled intersection and slam on their brakes.

At one intersection in Los Angeles, Beeber said statistics showed an 80 percent increase in rear-end collisions. Murrieta reported a 325 percent increase in rear-end collisions after red-light cameras were installed, according to the state Legislature. Both cities have scrapped their programs. In Murrieta, voters approved a ballot measure that called for removing the cameras by 87 percent. The courts later overturned the ballot measure

Not much else to say about it. It was a fucking scam that ended up costing people a lot of time, money, and injuries.

 

[Bronzeage]

And how many cars are delayed, when someone runs a yellow-red light, and causes an accident? That should blow the...OMZ a delay...meter out of the park for a month or so...

Somebody running a yellow-red light is not likely to cause an accident because cross-traffic has not been released yet. On the other hand, somebody slamming on their breaks to avoid running the red light even for a fraction of a second (as that already triggers the camera) has greater risk to be read ended than to cause an accident with cross-traffic.
Most red light accidents happen when a car runs a red light that has been red long enough for cross-traffic to have green light (and especially if cross-traffic is going through the intersection at speed, rather than starting to move).

Remember the first rule of Italian racing, "Whassa behine you, donna matta."

Of the many rights enumerated in the Constituition, the "Right to get there on time," is not one of them. Traffic light cameras violate no one's rights, because no one is cited for a crime. The car is the defendant, just like when a car is accused of parking in the wrong place, or for too long.

We have traffic light cameras in our city, at a few select intersections. There has long been an outcry against them, because in Louisiana we firmly believe that if a person can get away with it and no harm done, it never actually happened at all.

Photographic evidence to the contrary is considered cheating.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

90 cars an hour! That is 1.5 cars a minute. So at one intersection, there is potential one full car and a sheared off half a car stuck at a light because of cameras every minute. This will kill us all. Loren was right! We are all fucking dead.

Actually, in Los Angeles and most of California, they stopped with the red light cameras because the number of rear-end collisions in intersections skyrocketed.

From the article:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-n...ng-stopped-across-southern-california-country

Declining revenues, a nonsupportive court system and increases in the number of accidents instead of decreases, are the major reasons why cities have pulled the plug on red-light cameras in the past two years.

Some city council members and city traffic engineers interviewed said photo enforcement is causing more rear-end accidents because people are scared when they see a yellow light at a camera-controlled intersection and slam on their brakes.

At one intersection in Los Angeles, Beeber said statistics showed an 80 percent increase in rear-end collisions. Murrieta reported a 325 percent increase in rear-end collisions after red-light cameras were installed, according to the state Legislature. Both cities have scrapped their programs. In Murrieta, voters approved a ballot measure that called for removing the cameras by 87 percent. The courts later overturned the ballot measure

Not much else to say about it. It was a fucking scam that ended up costing people a lot of time, money, and injuries.

I won't try to refute actual statistics and historical findings. I didn't like the 2012 paper which included a bunch of cans and coulds.

 

[Derec]

Remember the first rule of Italian racing, "Whassa behine you, donna matta."

Could explain why an Italian hasn't been a F1 champion since Alberto Ascari in 1953.
In reality what's behind you can matter a whole deal, especially in racing.

Of the many rights enumerated in the Constituition, the "Right to get there on time," is not one of them. Traffic light cameras violate no one's rights, because no one is cited for a crime. The car is the defendant, just like when a car is accused of parking in the wrong place, or for too long.

We are not talking here whether these revenue-cams are constitutional but whether they are a good idea. Btw, DOJ came down hard on Ferguson for using traffic fines to generate revenue. Is that wrong only when it affects black people who like to riot over dead robbers or is it wrong in general, in which case DOJ should take a dim view of red light cameras as well?

We have traffic light cameras in our city, at a few select intersections. There has long been an outcry against them, because in Louisiana we firmly believe that if a person can get away with it and no harm done, it never actually happened at all.

Photographic evidence to the contrary is considered cheating.

We used to have them here back in the day. They have been removed years ago.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Btw, DOJ came down hard on Ferguson for using traffic fines to generate revenue. Is that wrong only when it affects black people who like to riot over dead robbers or is it wrong in general, in which case DOJ should take a dim view of red light cameras as well?

It wasn't just the cameras but the entire system that was set up to fleece the citizens.

As for our city, when we had traffic cams they were mysteriously all located in Black neighborhoods.

 

[bilby]

Okay, so cars not running red lights is considered causing "congestion"?

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

Maybe the law is different where you are, but over here, you are supposed to stop on yellow, unless it is unsafe to do so.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Somebody running a yellow-red light is not likely to cause an accident because cross-traffic has not been released yet. On the other hand, somebody slamming on their breaks to avoid running the red light even for a fraction of a second (as that already triggers the camera) has greater risk to be read ended than to cause an accident with cross-traffic.
Most red light accidents happen when a car runs a red light that has been red long enough for cross-traffic to have green light (and especially if cross-traffic is going through the intersection at speed, rather than starting to move).

Actually, in Los Angeles and most of California, they stopped with the red light cameras because the number of rear-end collisions in intersections skyrocketed.

Well, when you spend a life time in the same city with largely the same drivers and you share the same wrong driving habits, making people suddenly drive right may just have some negative effects. In Southern California, yellow means three more cars. Everyone knows that. It's that fourth of fifth asshole who gets broadsided by cross traffic who was (un)lucky enough to catch a green at speed. Move to Cleveland Ohio and if you're that third or even second car, you're slamming on your brakes wondering WTF is wrong with that guy in front of you.
I've seen some ugly broadside accidents in San Diego. They're all ugly. Now I think of the rear end collisions that would occur at what, 10 to 30 mph perhaps. It's called "following at an unsafe distance" and it's illegal also. I'll venture to guess less injurious though.
This is my biggest bitch because it's so prevalent. All the idiots who think they are such good drivers. Fully 80% of the people on the roads today would rate themselves above average drivers. And I have to suffer them just because I want to go to work. And when I get to work; what do I hear? I hear stories about all the idiots on the road. Seemingly, everyone else on the road with the exception of the narrator is a bad driver. Amazing.

 

[Derec]

Maybe the law is different where you are, but over here, you are supposed to stop on yellow, unless it is unsafe to do so.

Well you are not supposed to have to slam on the brakes - that's the "unsafe to do so" part.
My point is that going through just turned red is not going to cause an accident (because of a lag between your light turning red and cross-light turning green). Slamming on the brakes to avoid even possibility to cross a few milliseconds after the light turn yellow (especially if the yellow is too short) is a much bigger danger.

 

[Derec]

It wasn't just the cameras but the entire system that was set up to fleece the citizens.

I know it was more than red light cameras. But if DOJ takes a dim view on tickets-for-revenue in Ferguson it should take a dim view on red-light-cameras-for-revenue elsewhere. And in fact, it should go after using tickets to generate revenue everywhere it's done, like Metro Atlanta's Doraville or fromderinside's hometown he nicknames "speedersfundus".

However, there is one part of the Ferguson ticket thing that I disagree with DOJ on. The thing that brought this to a head (other than St. Michael getting shot for spreading the word of Jesus Christ and subsequent rioting) is many residents having active bench warrants because they ignored their tickets and neither paid up nor went to their court date to contest them. But that sort of irresponsibility is on them, and DOJ was wrong to fault Ferguson on that. You get a ticket, you deal with it somehow - you should not ignore it and then cry racism when you get the bench warrant.

As for our city, when we had traffic cams they were mysteriously all located in Black neighborhoods.

Were they? Do you have a map? Do you also know there was no other reason to place cameras where they were placed, like accident numbers?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The contribute to greater congestion, because cars are stopping on the yellow.

Maybe the law is different where you are, but over here, you are supposed to stop on yellow, unless it is unsafe to do so.

What happens is the yellow lights are set short so people have to do a very hard stop.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Were they? Do you have a map? Do you also know there was no other reason to place cameras where they were placed, like accident numbers?

Cameras are almost never placed based on accident numbers. They're placed based on circumstances that encourage red-light running--short yellows or a lot of right-on-red turns (these cause a lot of incidents the cameras call red light running but any human would realize is harmless.)

Now, the short yellows might also cause more accidents (I know around here the non-strip intersections {strip intersections have lots of distracted-tourist accidents} that are considered dangerous have short yellows) but that's not why the cameras are actually placed there.

 

[bilby]

Actually, in Los Angeles and most of California, they stopped with the red light cameras because the number of rear-end collisions in intersections skyrocketed.

Well, when you spend a life time in the same city with largely the same drivers and you share the same wrong driving habits, making people suddenly drive right may just have some negative effects. In Southern California, yellow means three more cars. Everyone knows that. It's that fourth of fifth asshole who gets broadsided by cross traffic who was (un)lucky enough to catch a green at speed. Move to Cleveland Ohio and if you're that third or even second car, you're slamming on your brakes wondering WTF is wrong with that guy in front of you.
I've seen some ugly broadside accidents in San Diego. They're all ugly. Now I think of the rear end collisions that would occur at what, 10 to 30 mph perhaps. It's called "following at an unsafe distance" and it's illegal also. I'll venture to guess less injurious though.
This is my biggest bitch because it's so prevalent. All the idiots who think they are such good drivers. Fully 80% of the people on the roads today would rate themselves above average drivers. And I have to suffer them just because I want to go to work. And when I get to work; what do I hear? I hear stories about all the idiots on the road. Seemingly, everyone else on the road with the exception of the narrator is a bad driver. Amazing.

Actually, it's even worse than that; Svenson's 1981 paper on this topic in Acta Psychologica found that 93% of US drivers surveyed rated their skills as above the median.

The main reason for this seems to be that drivers all have their own personalised definition of what makes a 'good' driver - Roy and Liersch, in their (paywalled) 2014 paper for the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, note that "For a portion of drivers, their ability to text message while driving might be one of the characteristics that they believe makes them a unique and superior driver, or at the very least that 'texting' while driving does not make them a bad driver." (A free to read summary article based on that paper can be found here).

Ultimately there are two classes of 'bad driving' behaviour; Objectively bad behaviours, such as texting while driving and other forms of inattentiveness; and bad behaviours that are situational, such as obeying the speed limit on a freeway when nobody else is, or speeding on a freeway when nobody else is. The safest behaviour on a freeway is to drive at the same speed as the other traffic, regardless of the posted speed limit.

Driver response to yellow lights falls into the 'situational' category - it is safest to do what everyone else expects you to do. Response to red lights is different - it is objectively less safe to proceed through a red light than it is to stop.

The law, of course, is incapable of such subtlety, unless the decision whether or not to penalise a driver is made by a person who has, a) sufficient information and discretion to make an informed judgement, and b) a desire to prioritise safety over other concerns such as revenue, ticketing quotas, etc.

Some police are very good at exercising appropriate discretion; few magistrates or courts of law are inclined to do so, due usually to a paucity of evidence about the detailed circumstances of the offence; and cameras (of course) have no discretion whatsoever.

So I am comfortable with the idea of red light cameras, but only where they are shown not to have a deleterious effect on yellow light safety - which is a matter of the local driving culture, and varies from location to location.