Red light cameras = more traffic congestion

[bilby]

Trying to prevent people “cutting me off” is what obnoxious, competitive drivers do. Some people will actually speed up when they see your turn indicator to prevent you getting in front of them. They’re worried you’ll slow them down and may even think along the lines of “anyone trying to get in front of me is ‘cutting me off’.” It’s exactly what NOT to do.

Yes, you will have people pull in front of you if you make space for them to do. So, make space. The one way to really improve the roads (and all life on earth!) is if everyone drops their damned “competitive edge”.

And when they pull in front it's temporarily very dangerous as they're way too close and sometimes they cut it too close in pulling in making you stomp on the brakes.

And having to use your brakes is a direct insult to your manhood that cannot be tolerated, right?

As if it wasn't bad enough that people think they are allowed to overtake you in the first place. Don't they realise that you are the most important person on the road, and are entitled to be at the very front of the traffic??

 

[arkirk]

Red light cameras in the City of Los Angeles were a complete bust. People learned they could ignore the citations the camera issued. Some people beat the tickets in court. Finally the City ripped them all out. They were being run by a contractor, not the police. The two major complaints were short yellow lights and drivers unable to stop in time to avoid the camera and sore right turners getting tickets.

 

[bigfield]

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.

They're killing off all the courageous Drivers Going Their Own Way before banning driving altogether.

- - - Updated - - -

A Libertarian's dream intersection:

[YOUTUBE]Y8bfNplEmfo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[crispy]

I will quote the law from my country then, and please look up the wording of your own.



Translates to:

Yellow light means stop. It shows, that the signal will soon turn red, but has still the same neaning as red light. Drivers don't have to stop, if they, when the signal changes from green to yellow, are so far ahead, that stopping will result in danger

So, your own quote states clearly that one does not have to stop on yellow, if it is unsafe, as all the science has shown it is unsafe a large % of the time. The fact that your legislators or sadly dumb enough to logically contradict themselves by also saying it "mean stop" doesn't change the fact that even in your country it is not illegal to go through a yellow light, unless it is clear that you could have stopped safely. Their is never a situation where it is legal to go through a red light, so the two lights clearly have drastically different meanings.

I have told you time and time again that there is the exception that if stopping causes danger you shouldn't stop, but thats the only situation where its allowed. We are perfectly clear on that. There is ONE exception, otherwise it means stop, in all other situations.

There is no contradiction. It is so abundantly clearly defined what yellow means. It means STOP! (if you can) Not 'if you can make it before red go' or 'watch out, its red soon' or 'speed up so you can make it' or anything else.

Maybe rules are different in the US? But this is pretty standard across europe.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I will quote the law from my country then, and please look up the wording of your own.

Translates to:

Yellow light means stop. It shows, that the signal will soon turn red, but has still the same neaning as red light. Drivers don't have to stop, if they, when the signal changes from green to yellow, are so far ahead, that stopping will result in danger

So, your own quote states clearly that one does not have to stop on yellow, if it is unsafe, as all the science has shown it is unsafe a large % of the time. The fact that your legislators or sadly dumb enough to logically contradict themselves by also saying it "mean stop" doesn't change the fact that even in your country it is not illegal to go through a yellow light, unless it is clear that you could have stopped safely. Their is never a situation where it is legal to go through a red light, so the two lights clearly have drastically different meanings.

I have told you time and time again that there is the exception that if stopping causes danger you shouldn't stop, but thats the only situation where its allowed. We are perfectly clear on that. There is ONE exception, otherwise it means stop, in all other situations.

There is no contradiction. It is so abundantly clearly defined what yellow means. It means STOP! (if you can) Not 'if you can make it before red go' or 'watch out, its red soon' or 'speed up so you can make it' or anything else.

Maybe rules are different in the US? But this is pretty standard across europe.

States vary, but the courts in my state have ruled that drivers do not have to stop on a yellow. We also have extended red lights allowing time for the intersection to clear before the next green.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And when they pull in front it's temporarily very dangerous as they're way too close and sometimes they cut it too close in pulling in making you stomp on the brakes.

And having to use your brakes is a direct insult to your manhood that cannot be tolerated, right?

As if it wasn't bad enough that people think they are allowed to overtake you in the first place. Don't they realise that you are the most important person on the road, and are entitled to be at the very front of the traffic??

We are talking about a dense traffic situation--the probability is very high that there's someone following too close behind you. Thus stomping on the brakes at a minimum causes a slowdown ripple and runs the risk of an accident.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A Libertarian's dream intersection:

[YOUTUBE]Y8bfNplEmfo[/YOUTUBE]

Actually, Chinese traffic is a lot more orderly than what you'll find many other places in Asia.

However, you're missing the point. I don't see anyone here who doesn't want to reasonable traffic rules & enforcement. It's just we are saying that cameras are almost certainly unreasonable. They're not based on catching bad drivers, but based on catching unlucky drivers.

 

[bigfield]

However, you're missing the point. I don't see anyone here who doesn't want to reasonable traffic rules & enforcement. It's just we are saying that cameras are almost certainly unreasonable. They're not based on catching bad drivers, but based on catching unlucky drivers.

There is nothing unreasonable about red light cameras.

On the other hand, you may have a problem with corruption and incompetence among your myriad local governments that can't even do something as simple as program the traffic lights.

...Plus quite a few drivers who are either impatient or don't know the road rules, and try to beat the red light.

The driverless car revolution can't come soon enough--most of the problems associated with human drivers will be become moot.

 

[bilby]

And having to use your brakes is a direct insult to your manhood that cannot be tolerated, right?

As if it wasn't bad enough that people think they are allowed to overtake you in the first place. Don't they realise that you are the most important person on the road, and are entitled to be at the very front of the traffic??

We are talking about a dense traffic situation--the probability is very high that there's someone following too close behind you. Thus stomping on the brakes at a minimum causes a slowdown ripple and runs the risk of an accident.

We are talking about driving. You can change the subject if you like, but you don't get to change what I am talking about to suit your agenda. I am responsible for leaving an appropriate gap to the vehicle in front. If the guy behind me is a moron, that doesn't mean I should be too; if he is driving too close for the speed, then all I can do to influence the situation is slow down. Then he can overtake and go endanger someone else.

Note that I am not talking about stomping on the brakes for no reason; if a child runs out into the road, I will brake hard. I hope you would too. I stay far enough from the vehicle in front to allow for that possibility. If you don't, then more fool you - I hope you have an understanding insurance company.

 

[fromderinside]

I am responsible for leaving an appropriate gap to the vehicle in front. If the guy behind me is a moron, that doesn't mean I should be too; if he is driving too close for the speed, then all I can do to influence the situation is slow down. Then he can overtake and go endanger someone else.

......

If you are driving in LA during rush afternoon or morning (about four hours each) and you leave a descent gap for traffic, even though you are driving in a pack going about three miles per decade, you are the one causing traffic problems. In fact its been known that in those conditions some frustrated chap will whip out a gun and unload it right there in PubliK.

Don't say these aren't typical driving conditions because it's about the same in Atlanta, NYC, San Francisco, Phoenix, Detroit, and most anywhere where there are more than a million people congregating toward madness.

Obviously cameras are a problem when one is subjected to them in a place like speederfundus. A place where two cars per hour pass by a given spot. As far as traffic goes here one might as well be in a funeral possession monitored by Hells Angels.

Again here I am, a voice of technological reason supporting a very mature technology. If the technology good enough to determine whether holes are of certifiable diameter in real time without risking R&M lives and machine stoppage then its good enough for getting scofflaws in Forgotten-in-the Desert or wherever you live Loren Pechtel.

 

[bilby]

I am responsible for leaving an appropriate gap to the vehicle in front. If the guy behind me is a moron, that doesn't mean I should be too; if he is driving too close for the speed, then all I can do to influence the situation is slow down. Then he can overtake and go endanger someone else.

......

If you are driving in LA during rush afternoon or morning (about four hours each) and you leave a descent gap for traffic, even though you are driving in a pack going about three miles per decade, you are the one causing traffic problems.

This is exactly and completely wrong.

It is very widely and passionately believed to be true; and some people are prepared to engage in lethal violence because of this false belief; but that doesn't make it true. You can say the same of Islam.

Leaving a decent gap - sufficient for others to merge in front of you - in crawling freeway traffic, actually increases the throughput of the road; it only takes a minority of drivers doing this to have a significant effect.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/traffic-jams.html

 

[fromderinside]

If you are driving in LA during rush afternoon or morning (about four hours each) and you leave a descent gap for traffic, even though you are driving in a pack going about three miles per decade, you are the one causing traffic problems.

This is exactly and completely wrong.

It is very widely and passionately believed to be true; and some people are prepared to engage in lethal violence because of this false belief; but that doesn't make it true. You can say the same of Islam.

Leaving a decent gap - sufficient for others to merge in front of you - in crawling freeway traffic, actually increases the throughput of the road; it only takes a minority of drivers doing this to have a significant effect.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/traffic-jams.html

Uh, it should increase throughput on the road. It may if drivers are rational. They're not. They're emotional bags of shit.

My brain hurts when I think of freeways as fluids. When I do I always get wrapped around turbulence of pipe diameter change as analogies for exchanges entries and exits.

I prefer to use a spring analogy, better, a digital simulated spring analogy.

First freeways are built wrong in most places since design gives way to cost most always. There are too many cars on LA freeways on the west side of the village. Attempts to stagger work schedules has been tried again and again without much success. The last one that actually worked was in 1984 for the Olympics. What worked was not the plan. It was the fact that people just left town in late July and early August freeing up the freeways to levels they'd not be since the early sixties.

I'm not saying the article is wrong. It is, but I'm not saying that.

I'll put my experience against that of the author any time because I drive, er, drove, the busiest freeway system in the world 50 miles each way every business day for over 30 years. It comes down to whether people act rationally at times of stress when they are tired or beaten down. So instead of watching the freeways flow, which I did, I concentrated on individual behavior behind the wheel. Its amazing how many people act out to and from work in their cars.

Do not expect rational behavior as the norm in rush hour traffic. Even a noisy model produces more slowing than gain when abnormal behavior takes place.

The second reason I suspect the article is the statement of 35 mph as freeway rush hour traffic when one acts rationally. Not going to happen on I 10 , I 405, US 101, I 605, I 710, I 5, or I 210 active alternatives for my drive from Woodland Hills to Long Beach and back. Wit the packing we find on these freeways its purely fiction to presume spring bouncy behavior. Instead we get progressive compression behavior and turbulence behavior. If you teach, don't teach what he wrote. Teach what you experience over about three months on LA freeways.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, you're missing the point. I don't see anyone here who doesn't want to reasonable traffic rules & enforcement. It's just we are saying that cameras are almost certainly unreasonable. They're not based on catching bad drivers, but based on catching unlucky drivers.

There is nothing unreasonable about red light cameras.

On the other hand, you may have a problem with corruption and incompetence among your myriad local governments that can't even do something as simple as program the traffic lights.

...Plus quite a few drivers who are either impatient or don't know the road rules, and try to beat the red light.

The driverless car revolution can't come soon enough--most of the problems associated with human drivers will be become moot.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of red light cameras. In practice, though, fixed-location traffic enforcement is about exploiting something wrong with the location, not about safety.

- - - Updated - - -

We are talking about a dense traffic situation--the probability is very high that there's someone following too close behind you. Thus stomping on the brakes at a minimum causes a slowdown ripple and runs the risk of an accident.

We are talking about driving. You can change the subject if you like, but you don't get to change what I am talking about to suit your agenda. I am responsible for leaving an appropriate gap to the vehicle in front. If the guy behind me is a moron, that doesn't mean I should be too; if he is driving too close for the speed, then all I can do to influence the situation is slow down. Then he can overtake and go endanger someone else.

Note that I am not talking about stomping on the brakes for no reason; if a child runs out into the road, I will brake hard. I hope you would too. I stay far enough from the vehicle in front to allow for that possibility. If you don't, then more fool you - I hope you have an understanding insurance company.

So you only care about your "responsibility", never mind the overall situation.

 

[bilby]

This is exactly and completely wrong.

It is very widely and passionately believed to be true; and some people are prepared to engage in lethal violence because of this false belief; but that doesn't make it true. You can say the same of Islam.

Leaving a decent gap - sufficient for others to merge in front of you - in crawling freeway traffic, actually increases the throughput of the road; it only takes a minority of drivers doing this to have a significant effect.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/traffic-jams.html

Uh, it should increase throughput on the road. It may if drivers are rational. They're not. They're emotional bags of shit.

My brain hurts when I think of freeways as fluids. When I do I always get wrapped around turbulence of pipe diameter change as analogies for exchanges entries and exits.

I prefer to use a spring analogy, better, a digital simulated spring analogy.

First freeways are built wrong in most places since design gives way to cost most always. There are too many cars on LA freeways on the west side of the village. Attempts to stagger work schedules has been tried again and again without much success. The last one that actually worked was in 1984 for the Olympics. What worked was not the plan. It was the fact that people just left town in late July and early August freeing up the freeways to levels they'd not be since the early sixties.

I'm not saying the article is wrong. It is, but I'm not saying that.

I'll put my experience against that of the author any time because I drive, er, drove, the busiest freeway system in the world 50 miles each way every business day for over 30 years. It comes down to whether people act rationally at times of stress when they are tired or beaten down. So instead of watching the freeways flow, which I did, I concentrated on individual behavior behind the wheel. Its amazing how many people act out to and from work in their cars.

Do not expect rational behavior as the norm in rush hour traffic. Even a noisy model produces more slowing than gain when abnormal behavior takes place.

The second reason I suspect the article is the statement of 35 mph as freeway rush hour traffic when one acts rationally. Not going to happen on I 10 , I 405, US 101, I 605, I 710, I 5, or I 210 active alternatives for my drive from Woodland Hills to Long Beach and back. Wit the packing we find on these freeways its purely fiction to presume spring bouncy behavior. Instead we get progressive compression behavior and turbulence behavior. If you teach, don't teach what he wrote. Teach what you experience over about three months on LA freeways.

I'm going to take his theory and experiment backed thesis over your anecdotes any day of the week.

He makes it very clear that he is expecting irrational behaviour from other drivers; and no matter how overloaded or poorly designed the LA freeway system might be, it's still subject to the laws of physics.

You need to re-read the article I linked, and this time try to understand it, rather than just trying to find excuses to ignore it.

Or just continue being wrong; it's not a problem for me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are driving in LA during rush afternoon or morning (about four hours each) and you leave a descent gap for traffic, even though you are driving in a pack going about three miles per decade, you are the one causing traffic problems.

Exactly. Not going with the normal behavior of the cars around is dangerous, regardless of how that interacts with the law.

Again here I am, a voice of technological reason supporting a very mature technology. If the technology good enough to determine whether holes are of certifiable diameter in real time without risking R&M lives and machine stoppage then its good enough for getting scofflaws in Forgotten-in-the Desert or wherever you live Loren Pechtel.

The technology can be made to work correctly. That doesn't mean it can't be misused.

And Forgotten-In-The-Desert has almost 2 million people but no cameras by state law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you are driving in LA during rush afternoon or morning (about four hours each) and you leave a descent gap for traffic, even though you are driving in a pack going about three miles per decade, you are the one causing traffic problems.

This is exactly and completely wrong.

It is very widely and passionately believed to be true; and some people are prepared to engage in lethal violence because of this false belief; but that doesn't make it true. You can say the same of Islam.

Leaving a decent gap - sufficient for others to merge in front of you - in crawling freeway traffic, actually increases the throughput of the road; it only takes a minority of drivers doing this to have a significant effect.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/traffic-jams.html

If people didn't try to take advantage of the gap I would agree with you.

 

[bilby]

This is exactly and completely wrong.

It is very widely and passionately believed to be true; and some people are prepared to engage in lethal violence because of this false belief; but that doesn't make it true. You can say the same of Islam.

Leaving a decent gap - sufficient for others to merge in front of you - in crawling freeway traffic, actually increases the throughput of the road; it only takes a minority of drivers doing this to have a significant effect.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/traffic-jams.html

If people didn't try to take advantage of the gap I would agree with you.

IF you read the article, you would see that people taking advantage of the gap is a good thing.

But feel free to stick with your religion; it makes no difference to me, in the same way that Saudis who believe Allah wants them not to drink alcohol make no impact on my life.

I understand that you passionately believe what you are saying to be true, despite the evidence that it is not.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm going to take his theory and experiment backed thesis over your anecdotes any day of the week.

He makes it very clear that he is expecting irrational behaviour from other drivers; and no matter how overloaded or poorly designed the LA freeway system might be, it's still subject to the laws of physics.

You need to re-read the article I linked, and this time try to understand it, rather than just trying to find excuses to ignore it.

Or just continue being wrong; it's not a problem for me.

You don't need to see my personal testimony again. However you need to reread the 'article' you posted. Its a set of personal experiments supported by
1. pesonal testimony
2 models

It is not refereed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If people didn't try to take advantage of the gap I would agree with you.

IF you read the article, you would see that people taking advantage of the gap is a good thing.

But feel free to stick with your religion; it makes no difference to me, in the same way that Saudis who believe Allah wants them not to drink alcohol make no impact on my life.

I understand that you passionately believe what you are saying to be true, despite the evidence that it is not.

They're talking about merge jams, not about the situation I was referring to.

 

[bilby]

I'm going to take his theory and experiment backed thesis over your anecdotes any day of the week.

He makes it very clear that he is expecting irrational behaviour from other drivers; and no matter how overloaded or poorly designed the LA freeway system might be, it's still subject to the laws of physics.

You need to re-read the article I linked, and this time try to understand it, rather than just trying to find excuses to ignore it.

Or just continue being wrong; it's not a problem for me.

You don't need to see my personal testimony again. However you need to reread the 'article' you posted. Its a set of personal experiments supported by
1. pesonal testimony
2 models

It is not refereed.

It's also not wrong, and not the only similar result.

Test it yourself.

Or don't. I'm happy for people who live a long way away to remain ignorant of the harm they do to themselves and their neighbours; I don't have the energy to try to save the world from stupid false beliefs. There are just too many of them.