Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would only be a temporary fix, as drivers become accustomed to the longer yellows you're back to where you started.
This may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that when the light turns yellow, you are supposed to stop. If it gives you ample time to stop, but you try to beat it anyway figuring that the yellow light is long enough that you can make it, you deserve what you get if the camera flashes you. Long yellow or not, stop for the yellow light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
For example there is a light near where I live that has a left turn on a green arrow. It's an extremely long duration between the yellow arrow going out and the opposing traffic getting the green where maybe up to 8 cars can safely get through the intersection. The locals know this and will continue to turn left when legally they should be stopping and yielding to opposing traffic.
In that case, let the cameras flash them. That's what cameras SHOULD be for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Having said that I don't know what the standard is or if there is one but there should be, yellow lights should be timed nationally the same at every intersection with exceptions for specific circumstances requiring longer ones such as a light at the end of a long hill.
The sick thing is that there is no standard. There is a Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or something like that but it only gives guidelines for how long the yellow lights should be. There is no standard, there is no law, and despite what city officials may say, there is no accountability either. I timed every yellow light (with a camera) in my town at 3.3 seconds by sitting at that light with a stopwatch and averaging the times I recorded for 15 cycles (to account for my reaction time both to the light turning yellow and then to it turning red, which should theoretically be the same). But then at my red light camera hearing the assistant city attorney said that they are set to 3.5 seconds and will default to a blinking "error" state if that time falls below 3.5 seconds.
This may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that when the light turns yellow, you are supposed to stop.
Not necessarily, it's a judgment call. If your already near the light you certainly don't want to be slamming your brakes on to stop as that is unsafe driving practice. It's one of the iisues I have with the cameras, as already pointed out it will lead to people stopping when the safest way to proceed is to go through the light.
Quote:
In that case, let the cameras flash them. That's what cameras SHOULD be for.
Yes but the point of that part of my post is that people have become accustomed to that particular light. They have adjusted their habits to it just as they would to longer yellows. I'm not necessarily against a longer yellow as long as it's reasonable time but I don't think that will lead to less accidents.
Quote:
But then at my red light camera hearing the assistant city attorney said that they are set to 3.5 seconds and will default to a blinking "error" state if that time falls below 3.5 seconds.
I got ticket for one about 20 years ago and to this day I insist it was yellow and if it was red when I went under it there was no way to safely stop. The magistrate found me guilty and I appealed to the County court, the officer never showed up for the hearing so it was not guilty.
I really don't think this is true a lot of the time, but you did prompt me to remember another important part of this that I should have mentioned before: the delay time from turning red in one direction to turning green in the other. This could be adjusted whether the yellow was lengthened or not. PA in general is already pretty good at that in a lot of places, seems like. I know when I go to Mass. south shore Boston suburbs area there are plenty of old lights that have zero delay between the one direction turning red and the perpendicular direction turning green. Having that delay be an extra second or two could prevent some side impacts I would think, as least as many as the cameras would prevent.
Main point is that there are other ways to potentially address safety. There probably are some I'm not aware of. Introducing the cameras to give out tickets adds a way to make money, but without addressing some of these other possibilities they may not make things much if any safer.
In Weirton, WV, the light turns green simultaneously with the other turning red. I've almost been hit a few times when I went on green and someone was trying to beat the yellow light. The delay in PA seems to help very much with this issue.
Not necessarily, it's a judgment call. If your already near the light you certainly don't want to be slamming your brakes on to stop as that is unsafe driving practice. It's one of the iisues I have with the cameras, as already pointed out it will lead to people stopping when the safest way to proceed is to go through the light.
Indeed. I misspoke. I should have said "when the light turns yellow, you're supposed to stop if you can stop safely". Let's say that it would take you 3 seconds to stop on some road without wrecking your brakes or squealing your tires, after you react to the light turning yellow. Allow one second for reaction time. This means that the yellow light should be a minimum of 5 seconds long. The problem of the "judgment call" would be removed if it were made common knowledge that yellow lights are long enough that if it's a question of whether or not you can stop safely, just go through the intersection and the light will not catch you. The "judgment call" happens in a split second the instant that light turns yellow. If you're far enough away because the light lasts for 5-6 seconds when it only takes 3 seconds to stop comfortably, your snap decision at the point where the light turns yellow will be to stop, every time. And if you're only 3 seconds away such that you'd have to come to a smoking stop even if you could stop in time, you should just go through because there is a 2-3 second buffer.
I agree with what a previous poster said about how you don't see municipalities clamoring for stop sign cameras, because it's too easy to obey the law and not get the ticket. These cameras are not about making intersections safer... if they were, there'd be cameras on the stop signs too. They're about generating money for the municipality. It's the whole "big brother is watching you" thing.
And what gets me is that those cameras wouldn't account for unusual phenomena. Two years ago I had to run a red light because the battery for my truck was running out (the alternator had pooped out on the interstate and the battery gradually wore down)... if I had stopped, my truck would've stalled and I wouldn't have been able to get it restarted... I'd have been stranded at that intersection, blocking traffic and creating a huge hazard or headache for all involved. So I ran the light (it was plenty safe to do so since nobody else was coming on the cross street), made it to the Wal-Mart parking lot, whereupon my truck stalled out as expected and did not restart until I got a new alternator and a jump start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Yes but the point of that part of my post is that people have become accustomed to that particular light. They have adjusted their habits to it just as they would to longer yellows. I'm not necessarily against a longer yellow as long as it's reasonable time but I don't think that will lead to less accidents.
You may be right about that but I'm saying that if they want to put cameras up to catch the actual lawbreakers, they need to extend the yellow lights. People will always run red lights if they think they can get away with it, so no yellow light duration change will result in significant lasting reduction in accident frequency. However, if there was a camera on the light and the yellow lasted a long time, those two things together would create a huge reduction in accidents. Now, people know they can't get away with it... but also that they have way more than enough time to stop if it's ever a judgment call. That would reduce the smoking stops that people make in order to avoid being flashed by the camera, and accidents would go way down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I got ticket for one about 20 years ago and to this day I insist it was yellow and if it was red when I went under it there was no way to safely stop. The magistrate found me guilty and I appealed to the County court, the officer never showed up for the hearing so it was not guilty.
They'll always find you guilty. They have to. The yellow light duration is not admissible evidence or whatever. Nobody cares about this stuff... it's all about money. That's why people always get up in arms against red light cameras.
Here is a great article that ran in the LA Times in July: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/27/local/la-me-0727-red-light-cameras-20110727
I know that PA is not LA. Many of the problems/issues with red light cameras are discussed in this article. The article states: “More than 180,000 motorists have been issued red-light camera tickets since the program, which has equipment monitoring approaches to 32 intersections, began in 2004 in Los Angeles.” The article also says that the fine could be $476 - but it is voluntary! Apparently LA has legal problems with the idea that they cannot tell who is driving the vehicle when the camera catches the picture.
Here is another good link to a group in CA called the Ticket Assassin: http://www.ticketassassin.com/rlt.html It discusses many of the legal problems with the camera tickets. The big one is presumption of guilt. As soon as you respond or pay; you have admitted your guilt.
Here is a link to a TN article that ran on Knox news.com: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/sep/07/new-laws-effect-no-more-tickets-for-illegal-on/?partner=RSS This article mentions the problems they have with tickets that the cameras give to motorist that make right turns on red - but don’t stop. Apparently in TN; they had so many complaints that they now only give tickets for rolling right turn stops if a police officer witnessed it. By the way; their tickets are only $50 according to that article. They also point out that the municipalities receive half the ticket money and the company that issues the ticket receives the other half.
Actually I just Googled: Who writes the red light camera tickets. I did not get the information I was looking for. I was looking for the discussion on whether or not a police officer had to issue the ticket. I have heard that debated on other forums and in the news.
Actually I just Googled: Who writes the red light camera tickets. I did not get the information I was looking for. I was looking for the discussion on whether or not a police officer had to issue the ticket. I have heard that debated on other forums and in the news.
Where I live, red light camera violations are (supposedly) reviewed by a real police officer before the tickets are generated. So, though the ticket may be generated by the company and you have to pay the company (which was the case with mine), they are authorized by a police officer in the municipality. It's no wonder we have those "scameras"... we have to pay for extra police officers to sit in cubicles reviewing the videos and photos taken by the cameras.
Red light cameras are a scam. They come in telling the municipality they will make dangerous intersections safe and bring in much needed revenue. Once set up they usually do not bring in the promised revenue and then begin shaving time off the yellow cycles of the signals to increase revenue. This makes the intersections more dangerous than they were before the cameras were installed
Many states are experiencing financial difficulties. They are looking in every direction for new means to generate hard cash. PA is no different. We just found out that Harrisburg was very close to default on their bonds - I guess our state is stepping in to save them. However; we also heard that we have other cities on the verge of default. We are also facing sever under funding of our teacher pensions.
About five years ago legalized gambling was shoved on us to give us a positive cash flow and relive property taxes. Of course we know that has not helped.
My feeling is that government does not care where it comes from - as long as it comes. We need an informed public to question any new legislation.
As far as our police reviewing the red light cameras: My worries are that funding will eventually force them to outsource.
You must not pay much attention to your surroundings, then.
I do pay attention to my surroundings - that is how I had a million and a half safe driving miles in commercial trucks.
If you notice I did qualified that remark in post #1 and #4. I said that it was possible that I did not remember. I also discounted drivers that extend the yellows and city gridlock. I have obviously seen drivers that would definitely be given red light camera tickets. I would much rather see somebody extend the yellow than slam their brakes on and cause an accident.
To me the accidents, that these cameras are supposed to save us from, are the drivers that never even slow down for a red light - that I cannot remember seeing. In two and a half million miles I have see plenty of stupid driving. Some I distinctly remember.
One other quick point on the camera lights: They would still ticket regardless of weather conditions. If you were the only person on a road, that was covered with black ice or slippery slush and encountered an uphill light, would you still stop if you knew you could not get going again and you were sure nobody was coming? A police officer might understand your reason to keep going. However; I doubt if the camera light technicians would understand - especially if their check depends on the revenue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
