Should Red Light Camera Intersections be cleary marked by large signs?

My answer isn't one of the choices. I would say they should not be there at all because they are there only to generate revenue. Traffic violations should not be used as a form of taxation. But if they have to be there then there should be warning signs because they might prevent some of the rear end collisions that are caused when people get to close to the intersection, see the camera, and slam on the brakes.

I suspect this may be a controversial topic.

 

The question doesn't have any strict application to hybrids/hybrid news ... but I'll bite. Should cops be clearly marked? Maybe stand out in the middle of the street with a strobe on their head? ... you know ... so you have plenty of time to modify the illegal behavior they'd otherwise catch you doing? Next question please.


.

 

Since your question seems to be only whether or not the intersections with cameras should be 'clearly' marked or not, and not whether the cameras belong there at all.

As such, I would say that yes, they should be marked, as they are 'supposed' to be there to reduce red light running, as if folks know that they would be ticketed, they are more likely to stop. However, the obvious aside, which is that we should all stop regardless, yes we know this. This question does not seem to be asking this.

I've also seen that in some areas, the marked camera intersections have a lot more rear-end accidents as folks are now more likely to suddenly stop the car to avoid a ticket, causing folks behind them to crash. But yes, overall, I think that they should be marked if they are to be there at all.

 

I voted yes, clearly mark them with signs. But I don't even think you need to open the debate as to whether they are primarily tools to encourage safer driving or primarily revenue generators for the city or state. I think they are both. You are never going to get the government to admit they use them to generate revenue, they are always going to take the line that they are being employed to make driving safer...but I think the obvious truth is a combination of both realities.

But to me, whatever you want to believe about Red Light Camera's why not mark them clearly? If a warning that they are being used leads to safer driving AND keeps a citizen from garnering a large personal fine? That seems like the proverbial WIN/WIN for everyone, and when those that run the lights are fined...they can't complain that they did not know. I think ( I could be wrong ) but I think in Portland they do put an inconspicous, hard to read, sign somewhere nobody looks...warning the Red Light Cameras are in use.

 

Some of the implementations have a short yellow light, which could increase the possibility of an abrupt stop and a rear-ender, which leads me to believe safety is not the reason they installed it.

 

You are being sarcastic, but in reality? Cops are clearly marked. That's why we give them clearly marked automobiles and motorcycles with flashing red and blue lights and they wear uniforms.

With Red Light Camera's I think it's pretty simple. If the sign modifys illegal and dangerous behavior (Running a Red Light) before it happens? I'm okay with that...in traffic control we do use warnings regularly...such as Curves Ahead..Stop Ahead, Yield to Merging Traffic...warning motorists that a tool is being employed is fine with me.

 

I think in a different thread I spoke of a stretch in Portland where they employ Red Light Camera's and I personally believe it is a very difficult stretch to drive because of the spacing between lights, the congestion and the timing of the lights...thus I'm sure the city makes quite a bit of revenue from the red light camera's.

Having said that, the city does have a few inconspicous signs posted that do warn they are in use.

I honestly don't think posting the signs would make that big a difference in revenue generation. A sign just warns a driver, already alert enough to notice the sign that the tool is in use...that's fair to me. People running a red light,by being unattentive, aren't noticing the red light they are running...so I hardly think the appearance of a sign is going to make a difference except maybe just to warn good drivers to be that much more alert. Even though I do think revenue generation is an unadmitted aspect to using Red Light Camera's, I think as a society we should strive for the ideal. If a warning sign prevents the light from being run? Then the driver has evolved, and the city is out a few bucks...If your goal is first and foremost to prevent accidents...and primarily and ideally it should be, then it's still a win/win to me.

Since intersection lights are passive and do not move, I have no problem with warning signs.

 

If this isn't an off-topic thread (and a silly one at that), I don't know what is. There is a sub-forum for these threads.

 

All the warnings you mentions are warnings of street rules/conditions. Not of enforcement.
We already have warnings of 'traffic light ahead' in cases where it isn't obvious. And a big light hanging in the middle of an intersection tends to serve as notice as well
I would think if you marked intersections with red light cameras you would cut down on accidents at those intersections. However, you would also increase accidents at those not marked as red light runners would 'know' they are safe to run.

 

I do say, since Traffic Lights are passive and non-moving I have no problem with warning. Or the "extra" warning of a sign.

I'm also assuming..maybe incorrectly, but assuming most people accidently run red lights or run red lights because of being unattentive. So the signs, or the presence of camera's aren't going to make a difference for those cases...and those are the people that SHOULD be paying the fines.

"Red Light Runners"? In my opinon if someone is a big enough @-hole to enjoy or want to run lights on purpose because they "think" they are safe to run...well my guess is they won't be driving with a license or legally very long anyway..There is no sign, camera, or tool that can prevent personal stupidity in action.

 

They should be marked but they are not.

I have a radar detector that warns me in advance of red light cameras. It works great.

 

they are marked here in california... only time before the rest of the U.S. adopts our policies (as with everything else)....

now... if only those speed traps were marked. (stationary and rolling stationaries are marked in arizona...) then again... . that's why people like me sit down a block with a sign reading " speed trap " " slow down".... i get a lot of thumbs up for that...

 

Aren't most of the cops running radar near or in their car initially? I understand where you are coming from, but to me the car itself should be sufficient marking. Although, there are those that "hide" between stretches of bushes/trees and those that are "undercover" as well.

I think the marking of the camera's are necessary at this point, and probably for the rest of people's driving futures unless some miraculous behavior modification comes into play when operating a vehicle. I feel the majority of people treat a "yellow" so that it means "hurry up and get through before it turns red" rather than "slow down and prepare to stop". Thus, the signage can also function as a safety warning, in that most people are going to hit the brakes at "yellow". Now, as far as your definition of "large sign", I think just the typical size sign similar to a speed limit sign is sufficient. I wouldn't go so far as to have a sign that is the size of overhead exit signs on interstates, though.