Red light cameras = more traffic congestion

[Derec]

Well there is also a difference between being a good driver and safe driver. Good driving to me means first and foremost superior control of your vehicle under variety of conditions. A good driver can drive in an unsafe manner, but will have a much better chance of not crashing than an average driver or bad driver attempting to do the same. A mediocre driver might compensate for much of his lack of skill by adjusting his driving accordingly and not attempting such things though.
For example: Hockey player Dany Heatley is probably an average driver. In 2003 he crashed his Ferrari 360 on Lenox Rd. in Atlanta driving at moderately high speeds and killed his teammate. A superior driver, say Sebastian Vettel, could have driven the same car down the same road at even higher speed with no problem.

I mean, you can't really say this guy is bad at riding a motorcycle.

 

[bilby]

Well there is also a difference between being a good driver and safe driver. Good driving to me means first and foremost superior control of your vehicle under variety of conditions. A good driver can drive in an unsafe manner, but will have a much better chance of not crashing than an average driver or bad driver attempting to do the same. A mediocre driver might compensate for much of his lack of skill by adjusting his driving accordingly and not attempting such things though.
For example: Hockey player Dany Heatley is probably an average driver. In 2003 he crashed his Ferrari 360 on Lenox Rd. in Atlanta driving at moderately high speeds and killed his teammate. A superior driver, say Sebastian Vettel, could have driven the same car down the same road at even higher speed with no problem.

That's the point; 'good' is subjective. 'Safe' can be measured objectively, by the number of crashes a person is involved in (perhaps adjusted for fault and severity), per km driven. 'Lawful' may be different from both 'good' and 'safe', but again can be measured by number of offences committed (and can be estimated, albeit imperfectly, from number of tickets issued).

You say 'good' means first and foremost superior control of your vehicle under variety of conditions. Others say 'good' is synonymous with 'safe', or 'lawful', or both; Others say 'good' is determined by the ability to engage in risky behaviour without crashing; Others still say 'good' means arriving at the destination sooner than anyone else would have; Some would say that a 'good' driver is someone who can drive a large variety of vehicles - cars, motorbikes, semi-trailers, road trains, tracked vehicles, etc.; and there are people for whom a 'good' driver is one who drives predictably.

There is no such thing as a 'good' driver, because 93% of people define themselves as 'good', and everyone has their own private definition - so the term is meaningless.

 

[Derec]

That's the point; 'good' is subjective.

Not necessarily subjective, just more ambiguous.

'Safe' can be measured objectively, by the number of crashes a person is involved in (perhaps adjusted for fault and severity), per km driven.

You'd have to control for road conditions, traffic, highway/city driving and last but not least the car driven. It's not trivial.

Others say 'good' is synonymous with 'safe';

That is stupid because we already have a word for "safe" - it's "safe". It's the same kind of objection I have for people who insist on calling nature "god". We already have a perfectly good word for "nature", thank you very much.

Others say 'good' is determined by the ability to engage in risky behaviour without crashing;

That's just restating what I said.

Others still say 'good' means arriving at the destination sooner than anyone else would have;

Ability to arrive at your destination sooner without incurring a high chance of crashing is definitely related to my definition of "good"

Some would say that a 'good' driver is someone who can drive a large variety of vehicles - cars, motorbikes, semi-trailers, road trains, tracked vehicles, etc.

Well yes, nothing in my definition precludes that somebody might be great at driving cars and motorcycles but suck at semis. As such good is not so much subjective as relative.

There is no such thing as a 'good' driver - because 93% of people define themselves as 'good', so the term is meaningless.

Who says self-identification is the way to measure it? If you asked people whether they were a safe driver I doubt the results would track well with their accident history.

 

[Tigers!]

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

That's so they could find all the stolen cars.

 

[crispy]

I mean, you can't really say this guy is bad at riding a motorcycle.

Hes a bad driver. Very risky behaviour, posing an unnecessary risk to many many people.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

In Baton Rouge, traffic cams are placed at intersections with the highest accident rate. As it so turns out, these are mostly in affluent shopping districts, where traffic demand lead to intersections of 4 lane boulevards, which all have double turn lanes.

Traffic cams will never be revenue generators, though some may see that as their only purpose. The actual purpose of a traffic cam is to remove the feeling of immunity from consequences many drivers feel, as they sail through a caution light which will turn red while they are still in the intersection.

A truly effective traffic cam would generate no revenue at all. Of course, this would also deny revenue to body shops and ambulance services, as well.

As with most laws, the root intention is too protect the majority of the population from the small fraction who thinks their needs supersede those of their neighbors. There will always be some anti-social types who see traffic signals and signs as impediments to their daily life and which can be disregarded when there is little perceived chance of being caught. Since there are so many traffic lights and so few policemen, the odds are always in their favor.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Traffic cams will never be revenue generators, though some may see that as their only purpose.

Actually here, that was their only purpose. They placed them on intersections where the semiphores were obscured by vegetation after sharp turns. The company that ran the cams and the city touted "safety", but would not comment on the lack of a decline in accidents during hearings, and continued to argue that removing the cameras would reduce revenue the city (and company) badly needed. They continued to operate until the MN Supreme Court affirmed that in our state the ticket must be issued to the driver and not the vehicle owner. They could still issue tickets but would need to match the photo of the driver to the driver's license. Even though this still would be profitable, it was deemed not profitable enough for the company and the program was immediately terminated.

 

[Derec]

Traffic cams will never be revenue generators, though some may see that as their only purpose. The actual purpose of a traffic cam is to remove the feeling of immunity from consequences many drivers feel, as they sail through a caution light which will turn red while they are still in the intersection.

Accidents are not caused by people going through yellow lights. But accidents can be caused by people slamming on brakes to avoid light turning red for a fraction of a second.
Accidents involving red light running happen when somebody runs a red light when the cross-traffic is already green. If red light cameras were calibrated to catch those offenders (much more rare, and thus ineffective to raise revenue) rather than catch regular drivers on a technicality they'd be much more popular.

A truly effective traffic cam would generate no revenue at all. Of course, this would also deny revenue to body shops and ambulance services, as well.

Yet cities do it for revenue. That should tell you all about their effectiveness. As far as body shops, they can do brisk business on rear end collisions as well.

As with most laws, the root intention is too protect the majority of the population from the small fraction who thinks their needs supersede those of their neighbors. There will always be some anti-social types who see traffic signals and signs as impediments to their daily life and which can be disregarded when there is little perceived chance of being caught. Since there are so many traffic lights and so few policemen, the odds are always in their favor.

But red light cameras are calibrated such that they ensnare many of the "majority of the population", and not just the "small fraction" of red light runners. That's the problem. It could be solved by increasing the time between light going red and cameras being active to say 1 second.

 

[Derec]

Hes a bad driver.

Wrong. He is actually quite good at riding a motorcycle.

Very risky behaviour, posing an unnecessary risk to many many people.

True. But if he was a bad driver (or rider) he'd pose a risk approaching 1 if he attempted this.

Being good at driving and taking unnecessary and reckless risks are two different things.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Accidents are not caused by people going through yellow lights. But accidents can be caused by people slamming on brakes to avoid light turning red for a fraction of a second.
Accidents involving red light running happen when somebody runs a red light when the cross-traffic is already green. If red light cameras were calibrated to catch those offenders (much more rare, and thus ineffective to raise revenue) rather than catch regular drivers on a technicality they'd be much more popular.

A truly effective traffic cam would generate no revenue at all. Of course, this would also deny revenue to body shops and ambulance services, as well.

Yet cities do it for revenue. That should tell you all about their effectiveness. As far as body shops, they can do brisk business on rear end collisions as well.

As with most laws, the root intention is too protect the majority of the population from the small fraction who thinks their needs supersede those of their neighbors. There will always be some anti-social types who see traffic signals and signs as impediments to their daily life and which can be disregarded when there is little perceived chance of being caught. Since there are so many traffic lights and so few policemen, the odds are always in their favor.

But red light cameras are calibrated such that they ensnare many of the "majority of the population", and not just the "small fraction" of red light runners. That's the problem. It could be solved by increasing the time between light going red and cameras being active to say 1 second.

And in time people will become aware of and exploit that 1 second.
The light has to be red for the camera to activate. You have to hit the embedded sensors just before the intersection. Yellow lights are usually 4 seconds in 35 mph zones. You have to be pretty damn wrong to get busted by a red light camera. And this is what people hate about them. Being extremely wrong. And there's a picture of them being extremely wrong. And everyone who saw the flash laughed at them. Who doesn't enjoy watching someone else get busted for a traffic violation? I know I do.
All of a sudden it's all about their rights under the Sixth Amendment. Yeah, right.

 

[crispy]

Wrong. He is actually quite good at riding a motorcycle.

Very risky behaviour, posing an unnecessary risk to many many people.

True. But if he was a bad driver (or rider) he'd pose a risk approaching 1 if he attempted this.

Being good at driving and taking unnecessary and reckless risks are two different things.

In my world you can't be a good driver if you are taking unnecessary and reckless risks. He's a piece of shit and should never be found behind the wheel again. He might be considered a good driver on the race track, but thats not where he is.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

at busy intersections, it is unsafe to brake on yellow almost every light change for the car that happens to be reaching the intersection just as it turns yellow.

 

[bigfield]

Seems like there's a few cities in the US that need to reprogram their traffic lights.

Either that or you're all full of shit.

 

[crispy]

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.

at busy intersections, it is unsafe to brake on yellow almost every light change for the car that happens to be reaching the intersection just as it turns yellow.

So the color yellow is more unsafe to stop at compared to other colors or what?

Fyi: yellow means stop if you can.

 

[ronburgundy]

Seems like there's a few cities in the US that need to reprogram their traffic lights.

Either that or you're all full of shit.

There is nothing wrong with the traffic light programming. The problem is that the cameras impact decision making in a way that pits fear of getting a ticket against doing what is safest. The whole reason for yellow lights is NOT to tell people to brake, but to provide a warning that the light will turn red in a few seconds and they should begin to brake if they more than a few seconds from the intersection, but continue through if they can easily clear the intersection in that time, especially when their is traffic behind them. When you add a camera (especially when all drivers know they are designed to extort whenever possible), some people get paranoid and brake as soon as they see yellow, even when they would easily clear the intersection before the red. But other people will not overreact this way and go through the intersection when it makes sense to do so. Thus, the cameras greatly increase the unpredictability of driver reactions approaching intersections, and thus accidents. That is why the empirical data clearly show more accidents due to such cameras.

 

[ronburgundy]

at busy intersections, it is unsafe to brake on yellow almost every light change for the car that happens to be reaching the intersection just as it turns yellow.

So the color yellow is more unsafe to stop at compared to other colors or what?

Fyi: yellow means stop if you can.

"IF you can" means do not stop if you are about to enter the intersection when it turns yellow, because that in inherently unsafe and far less safe than proceeding through the intersection. Yellow does not mean brake, it means the light will turn red in a few seconds, so do what is safest depending on where you are at, your speed, and the cars behind you.
Try applying some reasoning. "At busy intersections" means there are cars right behind you. There is no warning from green to yellow. Yellow is the warning. Thus, if you brake right when you see yellow, you are braking suddenly without warning and greatly increase the odds that the person behind you has slightly slower reaction times and hits you.
Cameras mean, watch out, the city is broke and looking for any excuse to take your money, so even when its safer to continue through the intersection you might get a $150 fine. It pits avoidance of a ticket against making the safest choice given the circumstances.

 

[crispy]

So the color yellow is more unsafe to stop at compared to other colors or what?

Fyi: yellow means stop if you can.

"IF you can" means do not stop if you are about to enter the intersection when it turns yellow, because that in inherently unsafe and far less safe than proceeding through the intersection. Yellow does not mean brake, it means the light will turn red in a few seconds, so do what is safest depending on where you are at, your speed, and the cars behind you.
Try applying some reasoning. "At busy intersections" means there are cars right behind you. There is no warning from green to yellow. Yellow is the warning. Thus, if you brake right when you see yellow, you are braking suddenly without warning and greatly increase the odds that the person behind you has slightly slower reaction times and hits you.
Cameras mean, watch out, the city is broke and looking for any excuse to take your money, so even when its safer to continue through the intersection you might get a $150 fine. It pits avoidance of a ticket against making the safest choice given the circumstances.

What a load... People behind you manage to stop just fine even without intersection lights telling them what to do.

I can only speak for my own country, here yellow means stop just as much as red does, and you are only allowed to pass if braking would be unsafe. Personally I pass 4 busy intersections on my way to work, and I manage to brake, without any problems, 80% of the time, depending on the distance to the intersection and my speed (or if the a-hole behind me can't keep proper distance). The rest of the 20% would be unsafe, as I would have to really step on the brake to make a stop at the line.

I can never take these excuses seriously from people whining about traffic controls. JUST FOLLOW THE RULES!

 

[ronburgundy]

"IF you can" means do not stop if you are about to enter the intersection when it turns yellow, because that in inherently unsafe and far less safe than proceeding through the intersection. Yellow does not mean brake, it means the light will turn red in a few seconds, so do what is safest depending on where you are at, your speed, and the cars behind you.
Try applying some reasoning. "At busy intersections" means there are cars right behind you. There is no warning from green to yellow. Yellow is the warning. Thus, if you brake right when you see yellow, you are braking suddenly without warning and greatly increase the odds that the person behind you has slightly slower reaction times and hits you.
Cameras mean, watch out, the city is broke and looking for any excuse to take your money, so even when its safer to continue through the intersection you might get a $150 fine. It pits avoidance of a ticket against making the safest choice given the circumstances.

I can only speak for my own country, here yellow means stop just as much as red does, and you are only allowed to pass if braking would be unsafe.

You are not speaking for any country. The yellow wouldn't exist if it meant the same thing as red. A red means that it is almost certainly far more dangerous to continue than the brake. A yellow means that it is safer to continue than brake, if you can clear the intersection at your current speed.
At 35mph, it requires about 130 feet to safely come to a stop on a dry road, without skidding and with giving drivers behind you sufficient time to also react and brake. At 35mph you would travel 150 feet in 3 seconds, and thus clear the intersection during the yellow light.

So, unless you are more than 130 feet from the intersection when it turns yellow, you should continue and not brake.

I can never take these excuses seriously from people whining about traffic controls. JUST FOLLOW THE RULES!

Braking on yellow is a violation of the rules, anytime it is safer to continue, which means anytime you are less than 130 feet at 35 mph (or less than 85 feet at 25 mph) when it turns yellow. That situation occurs during almost every single yellow light at busy intersections. Thus, is it objectively less safe and a violation of the rules not to continue on yellow hundreds of times every day at busy intersections. A camera makes people biased toward stopping it those unsafe situations, and the evidence from accident rates shows that they trigger far more accident causing decisions to brake when it is unsafe than they trigger people to brake when it is safer to do so.

 

[Bronzeage]

Accidents are not caused by people going through yellow lights. But accidents can be caused by people slamming on brakes to avoid light turning red for a fraction of a second.
Accidents involving red light running happen when somebody runs a red light when the cross-traffic is already green. If red light cameras were calibrated to catch those offenders (much more rare, and thus ineffective to raise revenue) rather than catch regular drivers on a technicality they'd be much more popular.

A truly effective traffic cam would generate no revenue at all. Of course, this would also deny revenue to body shops and ambulance services, as well.

Yet cities do it for revenue. That should tell you all about their effectiveness. As far as body shops, they can do brisk business on rear end collisions as well.

As with most laws, the root intention is too protect the majority of the population from the small fraction who thinks their needs supersede those of their neighbors. There will always be some anti-social types who see traffic signals and signs as impediments to their daily life and which can be disregarded when there is little perceived chance of being caught. Since there are so many traffic lights and so few policemen, the odds are always in their favor.

But red light cameras are calibrated such that they ensnare many of the "majority of the population", and not just the "small fraction" of red light runners. That's the problem. It could be solved by increasing the time between light going red and cameras being active to say 1 second.

If we can all agree that failing to stop when a traffic light is red is a bad thing, not a sometimes bad thing, this discussion would make a lot more sense.

If a caution light is visible to a driver, they are obligated to stop. If there happens to be a driver behind them who is counting on them to run the light, that is not a mitigating circumstance.

I'm sure there are plenty of drivers who have extraordinary reflexes and some kind of mental object detection function in their brains, which allow them to run red lights and never hurt anyone, but there can't be enough of them to warrant a special exception to traffic laws for them.

Accidents are caused by people who run yellow lights. In the real world, where people drive, it happens all the time. As incredible as it may seem, one the most common things said after an accident is, "I was looking at the light. It was still yellow."

If you aren't going to the word of an eye witness, who will you believe?

 

[ronburgundy]

Accidents are not caused by people going through yellow lights. But accidents can be caused by people slamming on brakes to avoid light turning red for a fraction of a second.
Accidents involving red light running happen when somebody runs a red light when the cross-traffic is already green. If red light cameras were calibrated to catch those offenders (much more rare, and thus ineffective to raise revenue) rather than catch regular drivers on a technicality they'd be much more popular.


Yet cities do it for revenue. That should tell you all about their effectiveness. As far as body shops, they can do brisk business on rear end collisions as well.

As with most laws, the root intention is too protect the majority of the population from the small fraction who thinks their needs supersede those of their neighbors. There will always be some anti-social types who see traffic signals and signs as impediments to their daily life and which can be disregarded when there is little perceived chance of being caught. Since there are so many traffic lights and so few policemen, the odds are always in their favor.

But red light cameras are calibrated such that they ensnare many of the "majority of the population", and not just the "small fraction" of red light runners. That's the problem. It could be solved by increasing the time between light going red and cameras being active to say 1 second.

If we can all agree that failing to stop when a traffic light is red is a bad thing, not a sometimes bad thing, this discussion would make a lot more sense.

If a caution light is visible to a driver, they are obligated to stop.

Wrong. It is illegal to stop on yellow, if you cannot do it safely, which means almost anytime you are less than 100 feet from the intersection when it turns yellow.

Accidents are caused by people who run yellow lights.

Wrong again. The empirical evidence shows that many accidents are caused by drivers who brake at yellow lights when it is unsafe to so, and that red-light cameras cause an increase in the frequency of drivers engaging in such unsafe stops that violate the laws associated with yellow lights.