Red light cameras = more traffic congestion

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I suspect that a big part of the problem for the US and her residents is the insane level of fragmentation of authority - it's bad enough that we have six state and two mainland territory governments, each with their own subtle variations in regulations about the positioning, timing and rules for traffic signals; in the US, there are hundreds of different sets of rules, and hundreds of tiny jurisdictions that are funded largely by traffic tickets. It's a recipe for disaster, and it's not surprising that some authorities abuse their powers, leading to a general undermining of confidence in the motives of them all.

There are some things that really need to be left to a central authority, and the very nature of transportation and highways makes it insane to have more than a handful of different authorities in control of a single day's driving.

Drive 1,000km from Brisbane to Sydney, and you encounter two jurisdictions, one of which covers 90% of the trip. I seriously doubt that there are many trips of similar distance in the USA that have such uniformity of regulation.

Everybody abuses, the only question is by how much.

I have yet to see a US cop ambushing traffic in a location where there isn't a disconnect between the rules and sensible driving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

if a driver cannot stop without rear-ending the car in front that stops on yellow, then he also couldn't stop before rear-ending the car in front that stops on green, because a child ran out in front of him as he approached the intersection.

Such drivers should have their licence revoked as soon as possible, before they kill someone; they should not be allowed to be so numerous as to need the protection of changes to regulations aimed at their unlawful and incompetent behaviour.

I reserve the right to brake hard without warning at any time, should it be necessary to save a person's life.

The unfortunate reality is that you don't have a choice, in dense traffic following at a safe distance is actually more dangerous than following too closely. If you follow at a safe distance you'll have aggressive drivers cutting into the gap you leave, sometimes forcing you to stomp on the brakes because they cut it too close.

 

[ronburgundy]

That would include you, every driver you know, and 99% of all drivers. Next time you are driving, see how often you and every other driver are less than 130 feet from the car in front of you (or 250 feet if on the hwy at 60mph).

They don't suspend the laws of physics in favour of traffic regulations you know.

It's not necessary to have a gap as large as the stopping distance, because the car you are following has to stop too. Unless it hits a brick wall unexpectedly built across the highway

If traffic is going 35mph, and a driver in front of you slams their brakes, you will likely hit them if you are less than 130 feet behind them when they hit their brakes. And that is with perfect road and tire conditions. If the speed limit is higher than 35mph that needed distance increases exponentially. On any moderately busy road with a 35mph speed limit the cars are never that far apart and well under 50 feet if not 20. I bet dollars to donuts that almost every time you have driven, you have driven close enough to have hit the car in front of you had they slammed their brakes.

Keep in mind slamming brakes is what is under discussion, whenever the scenario is a car stopping on when the light turns yellow and they are less than 100 feet from the intersection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not as bad as all that. Traffic laws are generally uniform across the nation, even if enforcement is not. The rules for traffic light placement and management are controlled by the engineers of the highway department(state and federal), not law enforcement agencies. There is not a great deal of variation. A person who still has most of their wits about them could drive from Interstate Highway 10 from Jacksonville, Florida to Santa Monica, California(3,959km) and find, except for variations in the speed limit, it's all the same.

Red light and U-turn rules do vary between states.

In my state, it is illegal for a police officer to receive any commission or bonus, based on writing tickets or arrests.

Which does nothing about rewards based on things like more desired shifts or patrol locations.

Traffic cams are an infringement on our automotive liberty. Even though we might not take the chance to push through a yellow light, we don't like the fact that it suddenly became more likely we will be caught.

If there is a flaw in the traffic camera system, it's the fact that the camera cannot check the driver's ID. The registered owner of the car is responsible for the ticket. Sometimes, the owner is the driver and sometimes he is not. In my city, city vehicles, with their public licence plates have racked up quite a few unpaid cam tickets. Who's going to pay that?

You're missing the fact that traffic cams don't show safety improvements and sometimes show they make things worse.

- - - Updated - - -

Over here, the registered owner gets a penalty notice, which includes a choice of two statutory declarations; He can declare that he was the driver, and accepts the penalty, or that he was not, in which case he must identify the driver who was responsible. Companies and organisations which own cars are required to keep a register of who is driving each vehicle at any given time; failure to keep adequate records attracts a larger fine than the traffic notice, and making a false statutory declaration is a criminal offence.

This system has not completely eliminated frauds, such as wives taking the rap for husbands who would lose their licence due to accumulated demerits; but it seems to be adequate.

Your constitutional right not incriminate yourself or your spouse probably means that such rules would not be an option in the US, but our history as a prison colony serves us well when it comes to limiting our freedom to lie or cheat.

And what if the owner actually can't identify the driver?

Say, a pair of identical twin teenagers in the family who both have access to the car.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

if a driver cannot stop without rear-ending the car in front that stops on yellow, then he also couldn't stop before rear-ending the car in front that stops on green, because a child ran out in front of him as he approached the intersection.

Such drivers should have their licence revoked as soon as possible, before they kill someone;

That would include you, every driver you know, and 99% of all drivers. Next time you are driving, see how often you and every other driver are less than 130 feet from the car in front of you (or 250 feet if on the hwy at 60mph).

Forget the feet, count two seconds after the tail of the car in front passes something like a roadside sign or road marking. Much more accurate and it takes speed into account.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/01rlcdt-docs.pdf

Page 5.

Note some of the criteria:

Yellows < 4 seconds.
Downhill approaches.
Speeding traffic. (Yellows are calibrated based on the limit, not on what drivers do. Thus this is another way of saying short yellows.)


http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4665.asp

Lengthen the yellow, violations go way down and the cameras lose money.


http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/47/4767.asp

And the guy who devised the original formula for yellow lights is saying things are going wrong.

(And he's describing the only red light ticket I've ever gotten: 45 mph road, I was turning left. I had an empty turn lane and an old green arrow as I approached. Knowing the arrow was old I kept my speed as long as I could and then braked reasonably hard as I got close--and the light cycled yellow and then red during that time. I was already braking on the green--there was no possible way out of the situation. At the time it went yellow I was past the point I could stop, I could easily have made it if I kept going--but that would leave me with no safe place to go. The only way of avoiding an accident would be to zig into the regular lane--which was already red.)

True, there are light programming problems that lead to confusion, accidents, and bullshit tickets. I was discounting the claim that people rear-ending drivers who unsafely stop on yellow to avoid a ticket was purely caused by traffic light timing issues. It is caused by the presence of the camera. If there is a camera giving tickets, you will inherently have some people unsafely stopping on yellow lights of any length, regardless of any additional problems caused by light programming/timing issues.
Cameras make avoiding a ticket rather than safety the primary concern for some drivers.

I was quoting a message where you said there was nothing wrong with the traffic light programming--now you admit there are problems.

And the reason people do crazy stops at intersections with cameras is they know that generally that's the only way they'll avoid a ticket if they're caught in the range between reasonable stop and impossible to stop. Even if some cameras are legit most are not and drivers have learned that.

 

[crispy]

IOW, red and yellow don't at all mean the same thing, because "unsafe to stop" occurs for at least 1 car on nearly ever yellow light at on even moderately busy roads.
Almost anytime you are less than 100 feet from the intersection when the light turns yellow, it is unsafe to stop, and far less safe than than to continue which will get you through the yellow in less than the 3 seconds it takes for it to turn green. In contrast, if a light turns red when you are 100 feet from the intersection, than you must stop even it it means slamming on your brakes because it is near certain that the cross traffic will be in the intersection by the time you reach it.

Yellow lights are universally warnings that your right of way is about to end, thus you need to respond in whatever way is safer (which is very often to continue). Red light universally means your right of way is over and you must stop no matter how close you are, because continuing is by far the more dangerous option.

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

Gult lys betyder stop. Det angiver, at signalet snart vil skifte til rødt, men har i øvrigt samme betydning som rødt. Kørende skal dog ikke standse, hvis de, når signalet skifter fra grønt til gult, er nået så langt frem, at standsning vil medføre fare.

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

It is very simple and very clear what you must to here, and I can't for for life of me think of how this can create dangerous situations. I will tell you again: I manage to do this many times every day in 35 mph zones, and I manage not to crash into people, or have people rear end me. It is very simple: green: go. Turns to yellow, stop, but not if you have to step on the brake. And of course, I have to cross on yellow on some occasions, I have never been arguing that its all the time you should be stopping.

There is a very good reason that yellow means stop: its to make sure no one crosses on red. Quite simple.

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.

So the fines are given to people running yellow lights or what?

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the cameras are calibrated to be err on the side of giving a ticket, which means even if the driver was completely in the intersection while it was yellow, if their back bumper hasn't cleared when it turns red but before cross traffic turns green, they get a ticket. Note that it is legal in most states in the US to still be in the intersection when the light turns red, so long as you fully entered it on yellow. Private companies are often in charge of the equipment and get a % of the fines, so they have a bias in rigging the system knowing that most people will just pay it rather than fight it. Their have been cases where they intentionally shorten the yellow light below what the regulations state in order to increase tickets. It is the same as for meters and parking tickets. They will give tickets even when meters are broken, knowing that most people will just pay and not fight it because that costs them as much as paying. Just last week, I went to a hearing and got out of a parking ticket for which I had took a pic of the broken meter and called it in. The ticket writer gave all 8-10 cars on that block a ticket even though the meter for that block was clearly broken. I fought it on principle and because I could take the afternoon off to go. But there is zero consequence to anyone for writing bogus tickets or for wrongfully calibrating cameras.

Sounds crooked. I guess if you have any proof of tampering with the equipment for the red light cameras you can go to court. If you haven't, then all this is, is words on some computer monitor.

People are aware of the purely money grabbing non-safety motives behind red-light cameras, so some get nervous and paranoid about going through a yellow even when it is clearly completely legal and safest to do so. So, even if just a small % of cameras are improperly calibrated, some drivers will err on the side of avoiding a chance of a ticket, which is often erring against what is objectively safest or legal. Avoiding a ticket is not the same as avoiding an accident. Cameras add a variable to the split second decision that is not the same as the variable of safety, and thus inherently make the decision less optimal in maximizing safety outcomes.

If they were actually concerned about safety, they would make the yellow lights a uniform well publicized length of time. Or even better, instead of very expensive cameras, install yellow lights that are a flashing # showing the seconds until it turns red, and make the law clear that you must be entering the intersection before it flashes "1" or something like that. They don't do that because it doesn't raise # and that rather than safety is the sole motive behind the cameras.

If you have any evidence that these cameras are not fair, I will consider this point, but don't try to argue that people aren't always able to stop before the light turns red. That is simply a bad excuse, and it might be because people wrongly think that the yellow light is just a warning, when it in fact means stop.

 

[bilby]

Red light and U-turn rules do vary between states.

In my state, it is illegal for a police officer to receive any commission or bonus, based on writing tickets or arrests.

Which does nothing about rewards based on things like more desired shifts or patrol locations.

Traffic cams are an infringement on our automotive liberty. Even though we might not take the chance to push through a yellow light, we don't like the fact that it suddenly became more likely we will be caught.

If there is a flaw in the traffic camera system, it's the fact that the camera cannot check the driver's ID. The registered owner of the car is responsible for the ticket. Sometimes, the owner is the driver and sometimes he is not. In my city, city vehicles, with their public licence plates have racked up quite a few unpaid cam tickets. Who's going to pay that?

You're missing the fact that traffic cams don't show safety improvements and sometimes show they make things worse.

- - - Updated - - -

Over here, the registered owner gets a penalty notice, which includes a choice of two statutory declarations; He can declare that he was the driver, and accepts the penalty, or that he was not, in which case he must identify the driver who was responsible. Companies and organisations which own cars are required to keep a register of who is driving each vehicle at any given time; failure to keep adequate records attracts a larger fine than the traffic notice, and making a false statutory declaration is a criminal offence.

This system has not completely eliminated frauds, such as wives taking the rap for husbands who would lose their licence due to accumulated demerits; but it seems to be adequate.

Your constitutional right not incriminate yourself or your spouse probably means that such rules would not be an option in the US, but our history as a prison colony serves us well when it comes to limiting our freedom to lie or cheat.

And what if the owner actually can't identify the driver?

Say, a pair of identical twin teenagers in the family who both have access to the car.

I don't know. And I don't care.

 

[bilby]

if a driver cannot stop without rear-ending the car in front that stops on yellow, then he also couldn't stop before rear-ending the car in front that stops on green, because a child ran out in front of him as he approached the intersection.

Such drivers should have their licence revoked as soon as possible, before they kill someone;

That would include you, every driver you know, and 99% of all drivers. Next time you are driving, see how often you and every other driver are less than 130 feet from the car in front of you (or 250 feet if on the hwy at 60mph).

It never ceases to astonish me, the knots some people will tie themselves into in order to rationalise their stupid and dangerous driving habits.

No, I do not tailgate. And even if everyone else did, that still wouldn't be a good reason for me to.

 

[bilby]

if a driver cannot stop without rear-ending the car in front that stops on yellow, then he also couldn't stop before rear-ending the car in front that stops on green, because a child ran out in front of him as he approached the intersection.

Such drivers should have their licence revoked as soon as possible, before they kill someone; they should not be allowed to be so numerous as to need the protection of changes to regulations aimed at their unlawful and incompetent behaviour.

I reserve the right to brake hard without warning at any time, should it be necessary to save a person's life.

The unfortunate reality is that you don't have a choice, in dense traffic following at a safe distance is actually more dangerous than following too closely. If you follow at a safe distance you'll have aggressive drivers cutting into the gap you leave, sometimes forcing you to stomp on the brakes because they cut it too close.

This is dangerous nonsense.

There's no excuse for tailgating, and it is never more dangerous not to do it. Even if the fictional driver who cuts in front of you dangerously was a real and common part of the driving environment, it still wouldn't be safer to tailgate than not, and his bad behaviour is not an excuse for yours.

Driving fractionally slower than you planned to is not going to ruin your life, nor anyone else's. Nor is occasionally having to use the brake pedal for its designed purpose.

Driving is not a competition; you are not in a race against other drivers, and you are not responsible for preventing or punishing their bad behaviour or habits. Your primary responsibility is to avoid crashes. All other goals must be subordinate to that, unless you enjoy being injured and/or injuring or killing others.

 

[ronburgundy]

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

Gult lys betyder stop. Det angiver, at signalet snart vil skifte til rødt, men har i øvrigt samme betydning som rødt. Kørende skal dog ikke standse, hvis de, når signalet skifter fra grønt til gult, er nået så langt frem, at standsning vil medføre fare.

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.

It is very simple and very clear what you must to here, and I can't for for life of me think of how this can create dangerous situations. I will tell you again: I manage to do this many times every day in 35 mph zones, and I manage not to crash into people, or have people rear end me. It is very simple: green: go. Turns to yellow, stop, but not if you have to step on the brake. And of course, I have to cross on yellow on some occasions, I have never been arguing that its all the time you should be stopping.

The entire argument in this thread is whether people should always stop on yellow, no matter how close to the intersection they are. That is the only point under dispute. If there are times when it is safer to continue, then it is guaranteed that making people focus upon fear of a ticket (which cameras inherently do) rather than doing what is safest in the situation will increase people stopping when they shouldn't and causing accidents. This is well supported by the empirical data.

You don't get rear ended because you, as you admit, don't react to yellow lights like they are red lights and do not automatically stop when the light turns yellow. Instead, you either stop or continue depending on what is safest.

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.

So the fines are given to people running yellow lights or what?

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the cameras are calibrated to be err on the side of giving a ticket, which means even if the driver was completely in the intersection while it was yellow, if their back bumper hasn't cleared when it turns red but before cross traffic turns green, they get a ticket. Note that it is legal in most states in the US to still be in the intersection when the light turns red, so long as you fully entered it on yellow. Private companies are often in charge of the equipment and get a % of the fines, so they have a bias in rigging the system knowing that most people will just pay it rather than fight it. Their have been cases where they intentionally shorten the yellow light below what the regulations state in order to increase tickets. It is the same as for meters and parking tickets. They will give tickets even when meters are broken, knowing that most people will just pay and not fight it because that costs them as much as paying. Just last week, I went to a hearing and got out of a parking ticket for which I had took a pic of the broken meter and called it in. The ticket writer gave all 8-10 cars on that block a ticket even though the meter for that block was clearly broken. I fought it on principle and because I could take the afternoon off to go. But there is zero consequence to anyone for writing bogus tickets or for wrongfully calibrating cameras.

Sounds crooked. I guess if you have any proof of tampering with the equipment for the red light cameras you can go to court. If you haven't, then all this is, is words on a computer.

There are number studies showing clear evidence of many thousands of bogus tickets issues by red-light cameras, including statistical evidence that points to deliberate fraud rather than random errors.

People are aware of the purely money grabbing non-safety motives behind red-light cameras, so some get nervous and paranoid about going through a yellow even when it is clearly completely legal and safest to do so. So, even if just a small % of cameras are improperly calibrated, some drivers will err on the side of avoiding a chance of a ticket, which is often erring against what is objectively safest or legal. Avoiding a ticket is not the same as avoiding an accident. Cameras add a variable to the split second decision that is not the same as the variable of safety, and thus inherently make the decision less optimal in maximizing safety outcomes.

If they were actually concerned about safety, they would make the yellow lights a uniform well publicized length of time. Or even better, instead of very expensive cameras, install yellow lights that are a flashing # showing the seconds until it turns red, and make the law clear that you must be entering the intersection before it flashes "1" or something like that. They don't do that because it doesn't raise # and that rather than safety is the sole motive behind the cameras.

If you have any evidence that these cameras are not fair, I will consider this point, but don't try to argue that people aren't always able to stop before the light turns red. That is simply a bad excuse, and it might be because people wrongly think that the yellow light is just a warning, when it in fact means stop.

You keep repeating the same total falsehood that yellow means stop. If it did, then you admitted to regularly breaking the law every time you have every not stopped on a yellow. I provided multiple quotes and links showing that the law clearly says it does not mean stop, and it is in fact a warning of impending change in right of way, and the laws specify that you should not stop when it isn't safe. Combined with the scientific fact that it is not safe to stop if you are within 100 feet of the intersection on a typical road, this means that about half the time the light changes there is a car that should not stop but continue through the yellow.
Also, the rampant demonstrated crookedness of these systems is beside the point. Even if they were perfectly timed, they are guaranteed to cause accidents by prompting people to stop in situations where it is unsafe to do so.

 

[Nexus]

I provided multiple quotes and links showing that the law clearly says it does not mean stop, and it is in fact a warning of impending change in right of way, and the laws specify that you should not stop when it isn't safe.

The other side is obviously not reading any of the links or studies. Its actually funny reading through the thread while they make blatant unsupported assertions or even false claims without even a sliver of evidence backing them.

 

[abaddon]

That would include you, every driver you know, and 99% of all drivers. Next time you are driving, see how often you and every other driver are less than 130 feet from the car in front of you (or 250 feet if on the hwy at 60mph).

It never ceases to astonish me, the knots some people will tie themselves into in order to rationalise their stupid and dangerous driving habits.

No, I do not tailgate. And even if everyone else did, that still wouldn't be a good reason for me to.

I’m out on the roads driving much of the day, every day. I’m well acquainted with the annoying habits of many other drivers, and how many of them tailgate is up there in the Top 5 Peevs.

But it’s not 99%. I know selective attention can make it seem worse than it is. And the distance people should follow varies according to the speed limit. And I don’t know if they even teach that in driver’s ed anymore, considering the ever-increasing density of traffic. People seem too lost in daydreams or too addicted to their “competitive edge” to care much.

To me, the point of noticing how others drive is to make notes to myself on what not to do. What others do that pisses me off is an opportunity to teach myself to do differently.

A good driver is a person who knows he’s a mistake-prone human like everyone else, and so allows room for others AND HIMSELF to make their inevitable errors. A bad driver is 1) anyone who thinks he’s a good driver and it’s the others that suck; 2) thinks of himself first and others second.

The unfortunate reality is that you don't have a choice, in dense traffic following at a safe distance is actually more dangerous than following too closely. If you follow at a safe distance you'll have aggressive drivers cutting into the gap you leave, sometimes forcing you to stomp on the brakes because they cut it too close.

This is dangerous nonsense.

…

Driving is not a competition; you are not in a race against other drivers, and you are not responsible for preventing or punishing their bad behaviour or habits.

Eggzactly.

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”.

 

[Bronzeage]

Red light and U-turn rules do vary between states.

In my state, it is illegal for a police officer to receive any commission or bonus, based on writing tickets or arrests.

Which does nothing about rewards based on things like more desired shifts or patrol locations.

Traffic cams are an infringement on our automotive liberty. Even though we might not take the chance to push through a yellow light, we don't like the fact that it suddenly became more likely we will be caught.

If there is a flaw in the traffic camera system, it's the fact that the camera cannot check the driver's ID. The registered owner of the car is responsible for the ticket. Sometimes, the owner is the driver and sometimes he is not. In my city, city vehicles, with their public licence plates have racked up quite a few unpaid cam tickets. Who's going to pay that?

You're missing the fact that traffic cams don't show safety improvements and sometimes show they make things worse.

- - - Updated - - -

I would not recommend a u-turn on I-10.

Whether of not traffic cams show safety improvements or not, is a matter of statistics. In my city, the statistics show they do.

There actually is not a Constitutional Right to unimpeded travel on public roads. Until such a right is amended into existence, traffic cameras will have to remain your pet peeve, something like childproof caps on medicine containers.

 

[ronburgundy]

It never ceases to astonish me, the knots some people will tie themselves into in order to rationalise their stupid and dangerous driving habits.

No, I do not tailgate. And even if everyone else did, that still wouldn't be a good reason for me to.

I’m out on the roads driving much of the day, every day. I’m well acquainted with the annoying habits of many other drivers, and how many of them tailgate is up there in the Top 5 Peevs.

But it’s not 99%.

I don't mean 99% of drivers are tailgating at any given moment (although on busy streets more than 50% are), but rather that 99% of drivers tailgate multiple times during most of their trips. Thus, 99% should lose their licence according the bibly's rules.
Also, "tailgating" in this context means simply being less that 2 seconds behind the driver in front of you, which is anything less than 300 feet behind on the hwy and less than 136 feet on a minor 35 mph road. The whole point is that the distanced required to avoid hitting a person that slams their brakes 30 feet before an intersection because the light turned yellow is much greater than people realize, and why it is considered by all scientifically informed traffic engineer and law makers to be unsafe to stop on yellow much of the time.
BTW, when you are at a red light that turns green, do you wait a full 2 seconds after the car in front of you accelerates before you even begin to accelerate? Almost no one does, and yet they are tailgating and following at "unsafe" distances if the don't. According to bilby's criteria they (and thus nearly every driver should have their licence revoked.

A good driver is a person who knows he’s a mistake-prone human like everyone else, and so allows room for others AND HIMSELF to make their inevitable errors.
A bad driver is 1) anyone who thinks he’s a good driver and it’s the others that suck; 2) thinks of himself first and others second.

Agreed. That is why it is bad driving to think yellow means "stop" without considering the scientific fact that it is very often unsafe to stop at yellow, and then blames the person who hit them when they make this terrible unsafe decision. Red light cameras encourage bad driving decisions motivated by a selfish desire to avoid a ticket rather than what is safest in that situation.

The unfortunate reality is that you don't have a choice, in dense traffic following at a safe distance is actually more dangerous than following too closely. If you follow at a safe distance you'll have aggressive drivers cutting into the gap you leave, sometimes forcing you to stomp on the brakes because they cut it too close.

This is dangerous nonsense.

…

Driving is not a competition; you are not in a race against other drivers, and you are not responsible for preventing or punishing their bad behaviour or habits.

Eggzactly.

Not eggzactly. Completely wrong.
It isn't about it being a competition. It is about safety. It is about the empirical fact that leaving a "safe" distance of 2 seconds (which is actually too low) will usually cause another driver to create a far less safe distance in front of you of under 1 second, less safe than if you had only left 1.5 seconds.
It is about safety. In multiple lanes of merging traffic, it is often objectively safer to follow at a distance that is less than ideal, but still longer than the fraction of the distance created when that ideal distance is inevitably (and almost always is) cut off by another driver.

Yes, you will have people pull in front of you if you make space for them to do. So, make space.

Too late. The moment that cut into the space, it is already highly unsafe. And you likely have cars behind you at unsafe distances. So, you can only slowly back off and hope that nothing happens before you can reestablish a safe distance, and the very second you reestablish that safe distance another car will cut in front of you. You will spend most of your drive at unsafe distances forcing those behind you to constantly (and dangerously) adjust their speed each time you back off the next person to cut into your "safe space" you just made.
It can be objectively safer for everyone to leave less than ideal space to discourage anyone from cutting into it. It results in less merging (inherntly dangerous), less speed adjustments (inherently dangerous), and a lower % of time driving at the most unsafe distances (which are when the person cuts into the space you left.

Note, this is a side issue about hwy driving, and largely a moot point regarding the issue of yellow lights. The fact is that even without this lane changing issue, very few drivers approaching busy intersections are spaced at distances that would allow them to safely stop if the person in front of them decided to hit the brakes when the light turned yellow less than 100 feet from the intersection. That fact has no chance of changing any time in the future. That makes dangerous to add extra motivations for people to stop on yellow when it is unsafe to do so, and cameras inherently do this.

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW, I don't doubt that there are specific intersections where a red light camera would do more good than harm. There can be various factors that converge to make certain intersections prone to people running red lights (as opposed to a yellow, which is legal and safe in most places). In those cases, a camera could reduce more accidents than they cause. Some drivers greatly accelerate when they see a yellow, so by the time it is clear they won't make it through on yellow it is too late. The cameras likely help reduce that behavior, though a speed camera would have much the same effect. It could catch people who accelerate toward intersections on yellow, without ticketing people who continue on yellows without accelerating. That would reduce the dangerous behavior with increasing the other dangerous behavior of stopping on yellow when it is unsafe. Consistently timed yellows with a visible timer would also help allow people to make safer decisions to stop or continue on yellow.

The problem is that it is politicians and their lackees who stand to profit off of fines who are making decisions on where to put these cameras and how to set the light timings, rather than independent engineers who get bonuses for reducing accidents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The unfortunate reality is that you don't have a choice, in dense traffic following at a safe distance is actually more dangerous than following too closely. If you follow at a safe distance you'll have aggressive drivers cutting into the gap you leave, sometimes forcing you to stomp on the brakes because they cut it too close.

This is dangerous nonsense.

There's no excuse for tailgating, and it is never more dangerous not to do it. Even if the fictional driver who cuts in front of you dangerously was a real and common part of the driving environment, it still wouldn't be safer to tailgate than not, and his bad behaviour is not an excuse for yours.

Driving fractionally slower than you planned to is not going to ruin your life, nor anyone else's. Nor is occasionally having to use the brake pedal for its designed purpose.

Driving is not a competition; you are not in a race against other drivers, and you are not responsible for preventing or punishing their bad behaviour or habits. Your primary responsibility is to avoid crashes. All other goals must be subordinate to that, unless you enjoy being injured and/or injuring or killing others.

Following distance is supposed to be 2 seconds or more. In dense traffic I've never seen that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Driving fractionally slower than you planned to is not going to ruin your life, nor anyone else's. Nor is occasionally having to use the brake pedal for its designed purpose.

Eggzactly. I had this moment of insight while working in Yosemite. A forty mile run of twisting mountain road with all the other employees running into the park in this Death Race 2000 like fashion. I finally said the heck with it and decided to take it a bit slower. And you know what? I always finished in first place. I had a lot of people in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place right behind me but, fuck 'em and feed 'em beans, right?

I've always thought, if I make it through the yellow and can't see it turn red while passing under, I'm in the right. That's always been my check point and it has served me well.

As far as traffic behind me goes, unless you are a large truck, what's behind me is the least of my concerns. It's everyone's responsibility to follow at a safe distance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whether of not traffic cams show safety improvements or not, is a matter of statistics. In my city, the statistics show they do.

There actually is not a Constitutional Right to unimpeded travel on public roads. Until such a right is amended into existence, traffic cameras will have to remain your pet peeve, something like childproof caps on medicine containers.

Whose statistics, though? Cities often publish deeply flawed studies playing games to show a safety improvement. For example, red light cameras move accidents from the intersections to the approaches--and a dishonest city may show a decrease in accidents in the intersection as evidence of gains from the cameras.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.