Red light cameras: No safety improvement

[Loren Pechtel]

Furthermore, you never addressed the fact that most right-on-red tickets are issued because drivers crept across the stop line pulling up to the point where they could see whether to go or not.

Im not quite sure I understand. Its red light, the driver creeps over the stopline to see... what? He's not supposed to go.

The problem is the stop line is set too far back to see whether it's safe to turn. In practice what you see is a line of cars. The first rolls forward to the point where they can see but haven't entered the cross traffic stream--legal behavior.

Cross traffic is light, he turns, the line of cars advances so the next car is in the same spot. The line of advancing cars pays no attention to the stop line, it's not relevant to what they are doing, stopping at it very well might slow down the traffic flow for no good reason. If the gap between the stop line and the viewpoint doesn't correspond to one car spacing the result is drivers not stopping at the stop line and the camera racking up tickets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Im not quite sure I understand. Its red light, the driver creeps over the stopline to see... what? He's not supposed to go.

Over here we have 'Left turn on red permitted after stopping'; presumably this is the same thing (only we drive on the left). The important thing is AFTER STOPPING. You are supposed to stop at the line, and then move forward (if it is safe to do so and will not cause vehicles on the cross street to change their course or speed), and make the turn.

Loren apparently is not capable of sufficiently precise control of his vehicle to STOP at the marked line as required by law; and instead is forced by his lack of driving ability to continue moving (at low speed) across the line, in contravention of the law. This, apparently, is not his fault, because reasons.

Watch the drivers doing this!! This isn't an issue of control, this is an issue that from a safety standpoint the stop line becomes irrelevant when you have a line of cars attempting such turns. Cops don't write tickets for such things but the cameras do.

I'm not saying someone comes up to the intersection and rolls across the stop line, I'm talking about a line of cars creeping forward when the first one turns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Im not quite sure I understand. Its red light, the driver creeps over the stopline to see... what? He's not supposed to go.

In most places in the US, a driver is allowed to treat a red light as a stop sign, before a right turn. Some intersections will be marked as "No turn on red," if it is unsafe(poor visibility, multiple turn lanes, etc).

The idea that traffic cameras cause accidents because drivers stop quickly and get hit from behind, is still pretty funny. Any city where people don't brake because they expect the person in front of them to run the red light, needs some kind of enhanced enforcement to get these maniac drivers off the street.

What kind of idiot disregards a red light, but slams on the brakes when he sees a camera?

1) I was talking about creeping over the line on a turn on red.

2) The reason drivers slam on the brakes is that the yellow timing is too short--there's a spot in which going gets you the ticket, only a panic-stop will stop you before the light. (And in the most abusive situations you don't even have this--the light goes yellow and no course of action on your part will avoid you entering the intersection on the red.) The car behind isn't assuming you'll run a red, they are in a position to make a reasonable stop but sometimes they end up hitting you when you make a panic stop. Unfortunately the two-second following distance we were taught in school isn't viable in the real world--try to maintain it in at all heavy traffic and you'll have an eternal stream of unsafe lane changes of people cutting into that gap.

 

[bilby]

Im not quite sure I understand. Its red light, the driver creeps over the stopline to see... what? He's not supposed to go.

The problem is the stop line is set too far back to see whether it's safe to turn. In practice what you see is a line of cars. The first rolls forward to the point where they can see but haven't entered the cross traffic stream--legal behavior.

Cross traffic is light, he turns, the line of cars advances so the next car is in the same spot. The line of advancing cars pays no attention to the stop line, it's not relevant to what they are doing, stopping at it very well might slow down the traffic flow for no good reason. If the gap between the stop line and the viewpoint doesn't correspond to one car spacing the result is drivers not stopping at the stop line and the camera racking up tickets.

If you don't grasp that you are required by law to stop at a stop line, then you shouldn't drive.

The law doesn't and shouldn't give a flying fuck whether the driver THINKS that breaking the law is safe. It's not your position to make that call. The stop line means stop. Roll through, and the best you should expect is a fine.

Good drivers don't get tickets.

Bad drivers say "I don't regularly get tickets. I've never gotten what I would consider an honest ticket".

Nobody cares what you 'consider'. Drivers are expected to know and obey the law. Not to act as self appointed judges and legislators, who assess each law they encounter to decide whether they think it should be obeyed.

 

[bilby]

Over here we have 'Left turn on red permitted after stopping'; presumably this is the same thing (only we drive on the left). The important thing is AFTER STOPPING. You are supposed to stop at the line, and then move forward (if it is safe to do so and will not cause vehicles on the cross street to change their course or speed), and make the turn.

Loren apparently is not capable of sufficiently precise control of his vehicle to STOP at the marked line as required by law; and instead is forced by his lack of driving ability to continue moving (at low speed) across the line, in contravention of the law. This, apparently, is not his fault, because reasons.

Watch the drivers doing this!! This isn't an issue of control, this is an issue that from a safety standpoint the stop line becomes irrelevant when you have a line of cars attempting such turns. Cops don't write tickets for such things but the cameras do.

I'm not saying someone comes up to the intersection and rolls across the stop line, I'm talking about a line of cars creeping forward when the first one turns.

And you seem to think that suddenly the law should cease to apply. But guess what - that's not how it is.

As any competent driver would know.

And there is an easy and simple solution - when you reach the stop line, stop.

 

[Bronzeage]

In most places in the US, a driver is allowed to treat a red light as a stop sign, before a right turn. Some intersections will be marked as "No turn on red," if it is unsafe(poor visibility, multiple turn lanes, etc).

The idea that traffic cameras cause accidents because drivers stop quickly and get hit from behind, is still pretty funny. Any city where people don't brake because they expect the person in front of them to run the red light, needs some kind of enhanced enforcement to get these maniac drivers off the street.

What kind of idiot disregards a red light, but slams on the brakes when he sees a camera?

1) I was talking about creeping over the line on a turn on red.

2) The reason drivers slam on the brakes is that the yellow timing is too short--there's a spot in which going gets you the ticket, only a panic-stop will stop you before the light. (And in the most abusive situations you don't even have this--the light goes yellow and no course of action on your part will avoid you entering the intersection on the red.) The car behind isn't assuming you'll run a red, they are in a position to make a reasonable stop but sometimes they end up hitting you when you make a panic stop. Unfortunately the two-second following distance we were taught in school isn't viable in the real world--try to maintain it in at all heavy traffic and you'll have an eternal stream of unsafe lane changes of people cutting into that gap.

We've been over this before, so I'll keep it brief. If a driver hits another driver from the rear, said driver is at fault. Claiming that one has to drive dangerously, to defend against other dangerous drivers is silly on the face of it. Driving as if the space in front of you is personal property and acting as if anyone who tries to merge in front of you is a trespasser, is a form of reckless driving which will lead to accidents. The real world is where cars crash, people get hurt, and insurance rates go up.

There is no Constitutional right to get there on time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is the stop line is set too far back to see whether it's safe to turn. In practice what you see is a line of cars. The first rolls forward to the point where they can see but haven't entered the cross traffic stream--legal behavior.

Cross traffic is light, he turns, the line of cars advances so the next car is in the same spot. The line of advancing cars pays no attention to the stop line, it's not relevant to what they are doing, stopping at it very well might slow down the traffic flow for no good reason. If the gap between the stop line and the viewpoint doesn't correspond to one car spacing the result is drivers not stopping at the stop line and the camera racking up tickets.

If you don't grasp that you are required by law to stop at a stop line, then you shouldn't drive.

The law doesn't and shouldn't give a flying fuck whether the driver THINKS that breaking the law is safe. It's not your position to make that call. The stop line means stop. Roll through, and the best you should expect is a fine.

Good drivers don't get tickets.

Bad drivers say "I don't regularly get tickets. I've never gotten what I would consider an honest ticket".

Nobody cares what you 'consider'. Drivers are expected to know and obey the law. Not to act as self appointed judges and legislators, who assess each law they encounter to decide whether they think it should be obeyed.

1) The numbers do say it's safe.

2) Cops don't ticket for this sort of thing, they know it's not a problem. There are even some honest politicians that prohibit such tickets. However, when it's about revenue rather than safety you get cameras placed to rack up such tickets.

- - - Updated - - -

1) I was talking about creeping over the line on a turn on red.

2) The reason drivers slam on the brakes is that the yellow timing is too short--there's a spot in which going gets you the ticket, only a panic-stop will stop you before the light. (And in the most abusive situations you don't even have this--the light goes yellow and no course of action on your part will avoid you entering the intersection on the red.) The car behind isn't assuming you'll run a red, they are in a position to make a reasonable stop but sometimes they end up hitting you when you make a panic stop. Unfortunately the two-second following distance we were taught in school isn't viable in the real world--try to maintain it in at all heavy traffic and you'll have an eternal stream of unsafe lane changes of people cutting into that gap.

We've been over this before, so I'll keep it brief. If a driver hits another driver from the rear, said driver is at fault. Claiming that one has to drive dangerously, to defend against other dangerous drivers is silly on the face of it. Driving as if the space in front of you is personal property and acting as if anyone who tries to merge in front of you is a trespasser, is a form of reckless driving which will lead to accidents. The real world is where cars crash, people get hurt, and insurance rates go up.

There is no Constitutional right to get there on time.

When drivers keep cutting in you aren't actually maintaining the requisite clearance. Instead, you're causing a disruption to the flow that increases the accidents.

 

[bilby]

If you don't grasp that you are required by law to stop at a stop line, then you shouldn't drive.

The law doesn't and shouldn't give a flying fuck whether the driver THINKS that breaking the law is safe. It's not your position to make that call. The stop line means stop. Roll through, and the best you should expect is a fine.

Good drivers don't get tickets.

Bad drivers say "I don't regularly get tickets. I've never gotten what I would consider an honest ticket".

Nobody cares what you 'consider'. Drivers are expected to know and obey the law. Not to act as self appointed judges and legislators, who assess each law they encounter to decide whether they think it should be obeyed.

1) The numbers do say it's safe.

So what? The responsibility of a driver on a public road is not only to be safe, but also to obey the law.

It doesn't matter how safe it is to drive through a red light; you exceed your authority if you decide to overrule the law in order to save yourself a few seconds, and unless you are a total moron, you should expect to be penalised for doing so.

Certain actions are deemed by law to have a sufficient probability of being dangerous as to be completely prohibited. Driving through red lights is one such action. If you don't like the law, then there are mechanisms to have it changed. But while it stands, you are required to obey it.

Driving is not a right; it is a privilege, and you may not do it at all without a license. You are only granted a license if you demonstrate an understanding of the law relating to the operation of a motor vehicle on a public road. You are then expected to obey those laws, and can expect a fine if you do not.

Nobody cares whether or not you like the laws, or what your opinion is of their effects on safety. You are still required to comply with them - because if anyone is allowed to interpret the law as they please, then everyone is - and that would most certainly be very unsafe indeed.

At a stop line, you must stop. Your assessment of the safety benefits of so doing don't enter the equation; they are irrelevant and of zero consequence. Nobody cares how safe you think your offence was. It remains an offence.

2) Cops don't ticket for this sort of thing, they know it's not a problem. There are even some honest politicians that prohibit such tickets. However, when it's about revenue rather than safety you get cameras placed to rack up such tickets.

Cops have other duties, and have to prioritise. Cameras do not.

 

[Bronzeage]

When drivers keep cutting in you aren't actually maintaining the requisite clearance. Instead, you're causing a disruption to the flow that increases the accidents.

In that case, you must slow down and drive safely. The behavior of other drivers is not a license to drive recklessly. If you can't operate your vehicle in a safe manner, you should not be on the road in conditions you can't manage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When drivers keep cutting in you aren't actually maintaining the requisite clearance. Instead, you're causing a disruption to the flow that increases the accidents.

In that case, you must slow down and drive safely. The behavior of other drivers is not a license to drive recklessly. If you can't operate your vehicle in a safe manner, you should not be on the road in conditions you can't manage.

What you are missing is that attempting to maintain the clearance means you won't be going with the flow and that's more dangerous than not maintaining the clearance.

 

[bilby]

In that case, you must slow down and drive safely. The behavior of other drivers is not a license to drive recklessly. If you can't operate your vehicle in a safe manner, you should not be on the road in conditions you can't manage.

What you are missing is that attempting to maintain the clearance means you won't be going with the flow and that's more dangerous than not maintaining the clearance.

So in summary, your thesis is that driving through red lights is safe, but that slowing down a little to leave a reasonable gap between your car and the car in front is dangerous?

I am so glad you don't drive over here. If you ever visit Australia, I can heartily recommend our public transport system.

 

[arkirk]

Bilby...better get the scuba gear ready. You are deep deep deep in de Nile. It has been explained to you by people with widely divergent political views...and still you insist of enforcing unfairness. These cameras were taken out of service because they were a complete bust...costing more than they made and not improving SAFETY. THAT according to the City council was why they pulled the contracts for the red light cameras. The technology had too much wrong with it and cost too much to run. Some of the errors in these devices also appear without remedy without changing our traffic laws.

 

[bilby]

Bilby...better get the scuba gear ready. You are deep deep deep in de Nile. It has been explained to you by people with widely divergent political views...and still you insist of enforcing unfairness. These cameras were taken out of service because they were a complete bust...costing more than they made and not improving SAFETY. THAT according to the City council was why they pulled the contracts for the red light cameras. The technology had too much wrong with it and cost too much to run. Some of the errors in these devices also appear without remedy without changing our traffic laws.

A bald statement with no support is not an 'explanation'. And if the cameras don't make any money, then WTF are you complaining about? Apparently your beef is that they were installed; didn't catch many lawbreakers, and were then withdrawn. So what's the problem?

Nobody has said that the cameras catch people who do not drive through red lights; people here have just repeatedly said only that they think they should be allowed, in some circumstances, to drive through red lights - and that they are royally pissed off that they get fined if they do.

That's basically saying "It's my right to get away with being an incompetent driver".

Well guess what - it's not.

If you can't drive without going through red lights, then don't drive.

I am utterly disinterested in the whining of fools who can't seem to grasp that red means stop.

Don't they fit working brakes on American cars?

I don't care what anyone's politics are; the ONLY logical way that a red light camera fine can be said to be unfair is if the camera fines people who always stop at red lights. If they fine people who drive through a red, that's not unfair - that's 100% exactly what they are meant to do.

Now if you have documented evidence that fines are being issued on green lights, then that would change everything. Do you have any such evidence?

One of us is in denial. It's not me.

And you can take your condescending passive-aggressive bullshit, and shove it up your arse.