http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/07/survey-says-u-s-drivers-want-red-light-cameras/
"In a survey of people in 14 cities that have had "long-standing" red-light cameras, it found that a majority of people in all but one city were in favor of them."
Sounds like selective surveying to me!
Whenever I hear that a survey has found " majority of people say X"....I'm always suspicious.
About 20-25 years ago (man, how time flies) I was pulled in by one of those mall survey takers. It became obvious, at least to me, that they were looking for a particular result as all the questions seemed to be / were "constructed" to give pretty much one answer. I was also surveyed over the 'phone by someone who was trying to determine how important a 10 year powertrain warranty was in my new car purchase decision (not very important). In that one, I came to the conclusion that Hyundai was trying to decide if they could/should trim their warranty, Kia was trying to decide if they needed to follow Hyundai's lead, or VW was wondering if this would increase sales. Shoot, the company may even have been Saturn....but most surveys seem to be set up for a particular PRE-DETERMINED outcome.
I was riding in a local muny police car once as a car in front of us decided to go ahead and just go through the red light. The cop I was riding with said "berkeley it. I ant' gettin' killed today crossing a busy street."
That was the only time I thought a red light camera would be useful. Were staring to get the speed cameras in St. Louis, too.
Meh, guess they didn't ask any of the several thousand in Chicago who got tickets because their bumpers came to close to the crosswalk stripe.
I don't mind them. They catch people who make poor driving decisions in busy intersections and I can easily fight it when I make a poor driving decision in a busy intersection
. Ticket lawyers can usually get them dismissed for $100.
L.A. is debating dropping them. I guess all the lawsuits against them are costing way more than the revenue they bring in.
My wife was also broadsided by a jackass who ran a red light a few months ago. All he had to do was deny it and now we are out a $12K family vehicle without a dime paid by his insurance.
I hate speed cameras because I like to speed, but am ambivalent about red light cameras because red light runners are evil incarnate. I've been nearly broad-sided on my motorcycle a few times, once close enough that it gave me the shakes for a bit. Yikes. (And no, my speed wasn't a factor in that instance. It was a blatant solid red light that was run.)
I just got back from the UK. You guys really have no idea how paranoia-inducing driving is over there. There are speed camera warning signs practically every 1/4 mile on the motorways, and almost as frequent on many other arteries. Cameras issue tickets for as little as 2 or 3 mph over the limit, depending on the local municipality, so drivers have to be hyper-conscious of their speed. I drove nearly 1000 miles over two weeks and passed through countless camera zones - I'm sure that practically every photo they took of our car shows it threshold braking. Uggh.
I am OK with it as long as I get my day in court and a representative of the police force is present with the evidence so I can face my accuser.
nderwater wrote: I just got back from the UK. You guys really have no idea how paranoia-inducing driving is over there. There are speed camera warning signs practically every 1/4 mile on the motorways, and almost as frequent on many other arteries. Drivers are ticketed for as little as 2 or 3 mph over the limit, depending on the local municipality, so drivers have to be hyper-conscious of their speed. I drove nearly 1000 miles over two weeks and passed through countless camera zones - I'm sure that practically every photo they took of our car shows it threshold braking. Uggh.
And how do you like the "Average Speed" cameras in the UK!
I have no idea how you DONT get a ticket when driving in Europe.
Cone_Junky wrote: I don't mind them. They catch people who make poor driving decisions in busy intersections and I can easily fight it when I make a poor driving decision in a busy intersection
what kind of vehicle was he driving?
There's really no good reason for running a red light in a non-emergency situation. It's a very dangerous thing to do for yourself and others, something far more dangerous than simply running faster than an arbitrary speed limit. I don't have a problem with the idea of red light cameras.
However, like everything else, there certainly could be problems with implementation and that's a totally different issue. Sounds like Chicago needed to work that out.
for the most part I'm for red-light cameras .... that said if the company running them or the municipality that hopes to benefit from the revenue generated changes the time of the yellow light ... then not just no but HELL NO...
In reply to Raze:
A 76 F100. Let's just say his truck drove away with a lot less damage than our MDX...
He even admitted on the Incident Report that he was tired and wasn't sure if his light was red or green. The officer listed him as responsible on the same report, but since he denies it (after the fact) and no witnesses will make a statement, Geico is screwing us. I could strangle that little berkeleying lizard...
Keith wrote: There's really no good reason for running a red light in a non-emergency situation. It's a very dangerous thing to do for yourself and others, something far more dangerous than simply running faster than an arbitrary speed limit. I don't have a problem with the idea of red light cameras.
Well, there's the concept and then there's the reality.
TxDOT did a study and found out the simplest way to reduce red light running and accidents was to INCREASE the yellow time by 1 second so what do most municipalities do when they add a red light camera - REDUCE the yellow time by 1-2 seconds.
They then increase the dead time, time when all lights are red.
When a light turns yellow you are supposed to stop IF YOU CAN do so in a reasonable manner. But with the decrease in yellow time you can't stop without broadsliding your car and therefore you get a ticket. Also the varying times of yellow means that you never know if you have time to stop of not.
And then the decreased yellows lead to increased rear end collisions because nobody knows what the person in front of them will do.
Red light cameras have done a good job of decreasing the likelihood of a side impact but have increased the likelihood of being rear-ended. Sure it's their fault for plowing into you, but what an inconvenient waste of time. I'm not advocating running lights--hell, I teach DE--but i don't like the idea of these things being used as revenue enhancement.
changes the time of the yellow light
Done more often than you think. Saw a new study/article out recently that said some were being dropped as fewer people are running reds (good thing) so there was less money in the coffers(bad thing). Makes you wonder about the intent of the installation.
Screw lights. Give me a proper rotary.
They did have to recalibrate things in Chicago to something a little more reasonable. I don't mind red light cameras - the speed ones are a different story - probably because of the combination of arbitrary driver training, arbitrary speed zone designations and at least before speed cameras, arbitrary enforcement. In Europe, I'm thinking the idea is make driving so miserable people will avoid it whenever possible. In the U.S. where the infrastructure doesn't support extensive public transport - using the same tactics as yerup is just kinda mean spirited, money grubbing.
I don't mind red-light cameras as running reds is obviously dangerous.
Crappy thing is I got nabbed ( $158) for taking a right hand turn on red because I didn't come to a full and complete stop.---- I don't see this as a dangerous move, as I had checked and the coast was clear.
Of course I am a criminal and should be treated as such.
Only law enforcement should be able to enforce laws. I hate the concept of tow truck drivers being able to take your car as well.
Joe Gearin wrote: I don't mind red-light cameras as running reds is obviously dangerous. Crappy thing is I got nabbed ( $158) for taking a right hand turn on red because I didn't come to a full and complete stop.---- I don't see this as a dangerous move, as I had checked and the coast was clear. Of course I am a criminal and should be treated as such.
In theory I don't mind red light cameras or healthcare for all or any one of a number of high sounding ideas, it's the implementation that is the issue.
Here is a compilation of some posts on this same subject from a local Porsche forum.
"So I looked that up, and the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Section 4D.10 "Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals" states that "The duration of each yellow change interval shall be determined using engineering practices." - Wow, don't overwhelm us with math or tables or anything.
It further says "Engineering practices for determining the duration of yellow change and red clearance intervals are found in ITE's "Traffic Control Devices Handbook" and in ITE's "Manual of Traffic Signal Design" (see Section 1A.11)." Well guess what - BOTH of those books are not online, and can only be purchased.Convenient! Only $93.75 each! A bargain!
Under Guidance though, the Manual on Uniform TCD says, " A yellow change interval should have a duration in the range of 3 to 6 seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with higher speeds." His intersection had a yellow interval of 3.4 seconds but further study showed it ought to be 5.4 - 5.7 seconds
A civil engineer had this to say - "Regardless, you have correctly identified that the yellow for that intersection is too short. The design guideline we followed was I second of yellow for every 10 MPH of posted speed on the approach. The allred period is not relevant to why the yellow should be 1 second per 10 MPH. This guideline was developed after detail study on perception reaction time combined with how long it takes for a driver to safely bring a vehicle to a stop when he or she sees the light turn yellow from green. The design guideline was also developed for "the worst case scenario" of a legally fully loaded truck (an 18 wheeler for example) to come to a safe stop from traveling at the legal speed limit of 45 MPH. At a yellow of 3.4 seconds, it is easy to argue that the yellow interval is way too short for safety."
Then this idea for defense came up: "As I understand it, every municipality is required to have a Licensed Professional Engineer attend to various tasks and put his/her professional neck on the line by affixing his/her official seal to documents For small towns that engineer may be a part time consultant but for larger cities there are entire engineering departments with multiple engineers and, hopefully, appropriate specializations.
You can file a complaint against an individual engineer or a governmental body. Please start at http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us; there is a large "FILE A COMPLAINT" button along the right side. Please read the verbiage there in its entirety especially as regards governmental bodies.
I would think you could properly demand of the municipality in question that they give you a copy of the settings of the traffic control equipment showing the approving engineer's seal which will give you his/her name and registration number. Getting that document may well itself be a legal fight and I can't offer any wisdom there. Now my logic here is that, since the law verbiage you cite specifically uses the term "engineer*", a Licensed Professional Engineer must review and approve those settings. You might, for all I know, find that municipalities believe that a police or judicial official can choose those settings and there may not even be a record of them. In that case, I hope the PE board will firmly coerce the municipality to comply with state law regarding the Practice of Engineering. The board has done so in the past (of course, the board members are appointees, and one can only hope they will resist political pressure). If there are documents with an engineer's seal and the settings do not match the document I hope that's a sufficient defense but moreover I think that's still a basis for a TBPE complaint. If the settings are not in keeping with the engineering specifications that is certainly a basis for a TBPE complaint against the engineer and again I hope that becomes a sufficient defense against the citation.
carguy123 wrote:Keith wrote: There's really no good reason for running a red light in a non-emergency situation. It's a very dangerous thing to do for yourself and others, something far more dangerous than simply running faster than an arbitrary speed limit. I don't have a problem with the idea of red light cameras.Well, there's the concept and then there's the reality. TxDOT did a study and found out the simplest way to reduce red light running and accidents was to INCREASE the yellow time by 1 second so what do most municipalities do when they add a red light camera - REDUCE the yellow time by 1-2 seconds. They then increase the dead time, time when all lights are red. When a light turns yellow you are supposed to stop IF YOU CAN do so in a reasonable manner. But with the decrease in yellow time you can't stop without broadsliding your car and therefore you get a ticket. Also the varying times of yellow means that you never know if you have time to stop of not. And then the decreased yellows lead to increased rear end collisions because nobody knows what the person in front of them will do.
I notice you didn't manage to quote the second part of my post. The one where I mention implementation. Thank you for providing an excellent example of a poor implementation of red light cameras.
Going to the OP, the poll probably looked something like this: "318 children died in 2007 due to vehicles that ran red lights. Red light cameras could potentially put these deadly drivers to justice. Do you support the installation of red light cameras in our municipality?"
Keith wrote: There's really no good reason for running a red light in a non-emergency situation.
My motorcycle won't trip the automatic signals so you have to stop, look both ways - then run them if you ever want to get anywhere.
N Sperlo wrote: I was riding in a local muny police car once as a car in front of us decided to go ahead and just go through the red light. The cop I was riding with said "berkeley it. I ant' gettin' killed today crossing a busy street." That was the only time I thought a red light camera would be useful. Were staring to get the speed cameras in St. Louis, too.
That's why he has emergency equipment-to safely clear an intersection. He's in the wrong profession. I'm sure all the other motorists appreciated him just sitting there as a car ran the red light.
BOT, red light(or any other cameras to enforce the law) are the devil incarnate. Disturbing that so many here have no problem with it.
I got a red-light camera ticket last year. It was for turning right onto a surface street after exiting the highway. On my ticket it said I entered the intersection 0.8 seconds after the light had turned yellow. I'm positive that the light was green up until the time I could no longer see it (because of the red light camera I was being pretty diligent) but how do I know where the camera determines that I have entered the intersection?
I paid the ticket. I still go through the intersection daily because it's by far the best way for me to go work.
I'm not in favor of red light cameras (and I wasn't before I got the ticket, also). I'm pretty sure they primarily exist to line the pockets of the companies that run the cameras (mostly RedSpeed) and to a lesser extent, the communities.
You'll need to log in to post.
