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

Daniel,

Your last post would fit perfectly at CleanMPG....we have been saying driving at or under the posted speed limit is both greener and safer.

In regards to your remark most people are idiots, I agree but nuance it by calling them emotional or behavioral idiots...they know damn well speeding is less safe, the laws of physics, etc...just arrogant to think they will never suffer. It's a common theme in Dilbert: the Pointy Haired Boss is not really stupid - he just does not care what happens to anyone else.

In years of hypermiling articles and reading posts on it, the flaming is generally from people feeling entitled to speed, threatened hypermilers will bring the pack speed to a lawful moderation - venting about imaginary tractor monsters when in reality speeders kill about 75 Americans daily.

 

Before anyone can clarify this, you must specify the jurisdiction under consideration. I possess old drivers manuals from different states with opposing answers, but am not going to dig through the legal codes of multiple states and provinces.

You list one of you homes as Washington State. According to the manual on hand in 1983, page 24, this is 'be out of the intersection before it turns red' state. Traffic snarls are no excuse, the anti-gridlock provision means that if the intersection is too snarled to exit, then you must not enter it in the first place.

I was first licensed in another state where drivers ed and the state drivers manual match what you were taught.

 

This should show clearly on the videos. Shame on the jurisdictions that select still picture systems.

When the wife and I were nearly killed by a red light runner, I sure wished the intersection had a red light camera.

 

I meant to mention this but I think it slipped my mind, I don't know the law, and state laws are not always the same, but common courtesy and non-donkey driving demand that you not enter an intersection unless you can drive all the way through and out of it. This applies to parking lot entrances if any car is waiting: don't block them unless you can drive all the way past.

Drive as though the other driver were your grandmother. Be respectful of her right to be on the road, and aware that she might not have the best reaction times.

And another thing: Why is it that people who get a ticket get mad at the cop or the camera that ticketed them, rather than angry at themselves for breaking the law? I suppose it might be because they think the law does not apply to them. ("I'm such a good driver that I don't need laws to keep me from hurting anyone. Laws are to keep those OTHER idiots in line. So don't ticket me, just them." )

 

Well I agree with you, as does the statistical evidence that the net effect of red light cameras and all the fines does not reduce the number of accidents. They have been shown to reduce some accidents and cause others. Your cure seems worse than the disease. Let's for the sake of argument been able to pass laws and change constitutions to instate your criminal penalty of license suspension for running a red light. You would only stop the fatalities from those that A) were repeat offenders, and B) their second offense was much worse. Statistics show most of these red light runners don't cause accidents. I would doubt you would cut deaths by 50%, and probably would create many felons driving without licenses, that I'm sure you would incarcerate. So now we have speant billions on new red light cameras, removed jobs as those that need a car to work will be fired, and starved the tax base for other things. All this and you have only addressed 800 of the 34,000 deaths and I have doubts about how many of those 800 you will have saved. As a side note 36 police officers in Austin have been caught running the red light cameras when they were not going to a crime and lights were not on.

How about trying this? Fix the lights. It works. I challenge any of the proponents that really care about safety to try and pass a law similar to that in georgia. An intersection with a red light camera mush have a yellow at least 1 second longer than the state minimum. The cities that have implemented the law have cut red light running at the lights more than 70%. Atlanta is fighting it and their accidents and red light cameras have not gone down. If your city is not telling you a bald face lie that the cameras are about safety, they will at least try a pilot program. My guess is they won't, 'cause the biggest safety advocates on red light cameras are really all about that sweet fine money and the power to ticket people they declare as bad. So if they are not lying you will. be helping them get to there goals. Try it

Did you just call most of the country perverts. The rules in washington state are quite different than most of the country. Amazing that it is against the law to embrace in the car and 1mph is considered reckless. Luckily this stupidity is not enforced. The federal government recommendation is not to ticket for less than 5mph above posted limit. So the reason many people think that is when tickets should be given out is because that is what the federal government recommends and police often enforce.

In texas the law says speeding is going above safe speed. The posted speed limit is only prima facie evidence that you were speeding. If you can convince the judge its safe, you are not guilty of speeding. Speed limits in school zones are strickly enforced. It is assumed on a 2 lane highway that you will speed to safely pass a slow vehicle and not stay in the line of on coming traffic. If you stay under the speed limit and pass too slowly you will be ticketed for reckless driving. It just seems like common sense, but some states ....

I am glad the US is not a dictatorship, and that people can not just arbitrarily change laws as they see fit. As I said most states do not define things as washington state and you do. There are hills, obstacles, inaccuracy in speedometers, problems with speed detection equipment. Zero tolerance on speeding would likely be just as popular and productive as prohibition.

I was taught, an I think its still on the books that red means stop, and yellow means caution. Human factors kick in on badly engineered intersections. It is unfortunate that people speed up for yellows. I think ticketing people that cross the line 0.01 seconds after the light turns red, will only encourage more people to speed up or slam on their brakes when they see yellow. Especially when the yellows on camera intersections are likely too short for driving conditions.

I do believe in the presumption of innocence, no matter how unpopular it is on this forum. Behavior like driving 70 in a 65 zone, or doing a rolling right turn on red at 2mph is not evidence of intent to murder.

 

A minor quibble, but red light cameras do not "cause" accidents. Bad drivers cause accidents. The presence of a red light camera may be a catalyst that reveals bad driving, but ultimately it is the human behind the wheel that makes the mistake.

Tom

 

Good quibble.
I agree my statement is wrong. But red light cameras also aren't just revealing accidents that were hidden without the camera. Red light are seen by some as an obstacle and the use of cameras along with human factors are directly correlated with increases in certain types of accidents.

I would add, that the selection criteria for red light cameras is such that they are placed in intersections where the length of the yellow light is relatively short compared to perception time of other intersections. When data is analyzed in the pilot programs over 70% of red light runners that are not making a slow rolling right turn cross within 1 second. On intersections where the yellow times have been increased by 1 second there is a immediate decrease in red light citations and accidents.

 

You are completely ignoring my point: We will reduce traffic deaths if we get reckless drivers off the road. People who drive recklessly do so habitually. They may not kill someone until the hundredth time they break the law. That gives us 99 chances to catch them and save the life of the person they eventually otherwise kill.

As I said, most reckless drivers are habitually reckless. Most of them don't kill anyone until they've been driving (recklessly) for some time. Get them off the road before they kill someone and you save a life.

And if you proof-read your posts you'd see that the stupid BBs software replaces upper-case-B-close-parenthesis with the "cool" emoticon.

Again, note above, that the idea is to get them off the road BEFORE they kill someone. Driving is a privilege, and when you choose to drive recklessly you should lose that privilege.

It SHOULD be illegal to embrace someone while driving. And what part of "SPEED LIMIT" do you not understand? The cops give you a leeway because of all those uncertainties you mentioned. You are SUPPOSED to drive AT OR BELOW the limit, but if OCCASIONALLY you go a bit over, they'll let it pass. But the IDIOTS who drive cars take this leeway, and treat 5 mph OVER the limit as a MINIMUM speed.

It is because nobody respects the actual limit that I suggest a change in enforcement. Since IDIOTS don't respect the limit, start ticketing them for one mph over.

By the way, I visited New Mexico, and a friend drove me around some small towns. On the Indian reservation there, the reservation cops ticket at one mph over the limit. And do you know what? People drive UNDER the speed limit like they're supposed to do. It does not create criminals. It creates people who drive slower.

Me too. And I've never suggested it should be. I've merely suggested laws and enforcement to make our deadly highways safer.

The only reason prohibition didn't work was that the cops were corrupt. The reason Al Capone was brought down by the IRS and not the FBI or the local cops, was that, of the three, the IRS was the only agency that was not corrupt.

Me, too. I've never advocated eliminating due process or the presumption of innocence. But when you are caught and convicted of reckless driving, you should be treated appropriately: as someone who has endangered the lives of others. Too many people die because of inadequate enforcement of traffic laws and lenient treatment of people who reclkessly endanger others.

 

No I read the point. I just disagree that what you are calling reckless is reckless. Can you find a place that takes away your license for a year for drifting 1 mph over the limit? But I am open to evidence that the same driver caught in a minor speeding violation will eventually kill.

Stupid, stupid, law. How about just a simple law about distracted driving.

As I explained before different states have different laws. Some people everywhere drive bellow the speed limit. Note New Mexico takes no points in rural areas, has the law that that you must be going 5mph more than the speed limit to be ticketed on the highway. Reckless driving is defined as 26 mph over the limit and must be at least 75. New Mexico seems to have very different idea of reckless than you. Indian lands may be very different.

You have jumped from 1mph to reckless driving. That really presumes much about guilt of recklessness after being caught doing something that most people including the fha considers safe.

Another reason it didn't work was people like to drink. Certain religions require drinking. George Washington was a large whiskey distiller and at a time making whiskey was considered patriotic. Ben Franklin said "beer is proof god loves us". You can not legislate morality. Are you sure that prohibition was a good law that was brought down because of bad cops. I suggest you revisit American history.

 

Just pay attention and STOP at the Damn RED light.......

 

You're supposed to stop?!? That's what I was doing wrong. :doh:

Tom

 

Get the app trapster.com for your phone. Its free and it calls out by voice "RED LIGHT CAMERA AHEAD" You can set the distance when you the message and its interactive so users passing live speed traps can call it in and it appears immediately. Great app that I turn on here in heavily camera infested L.A. Makes ne drive safe, too

 

Austingreen: I'm going to let you have the last word on this and move on. Thanks for an interesting discussion.