Stoplights to Mete Out Punishment? 995
gilrain writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that traffic engineers have created a stoplight that deals with speeding. According to the article, 'It senses when a speeder is approaching and metes out swift punishment. It doesn't write a ticket. It immediately turns from green to yellow to red.' This is not just a prototype: it is in use now at an intersection in the Bay Area. Does stopping speeders before others serve a purpose other than petty revenge? Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?"
great! (Score:5, Insightful)
what about other drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
from the crash-your-car-and-get-a-new-one-dept. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Result: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, y'know, there's that whole enforcement of the law thing. Unless that falls under 'petty revenge' in your book. One might also imagine that it'd be effective in encouraging the typical driver to actually obey posted speed limits (though I can't speak for the asshats who'll take it upon themselves to try and 'beat the system' by speeding faster or running the light.)
Is it even safe to change expected stoplight patterns, especially for drivers in a hurry?
Oh, heaven forfend that drivers be expected to pay attention to the road and traffic signals, especially so when they're in a hurry and thus simply have no choice but to violate traffic laws! Gee, officer, I just wasn't expecting that kid to cross the road--and I was in a hurry, so you can hardly blame me for it!
Just because it's easy to get away with speeding doesn't mean it's legal. Just because you're busy, late, or otherwise incapable of managing your life and time in a reasonable fashion doesn't mean that it's somehow more okay for you to speed than somebody who speeds for the hell of it. The fact that you can manufacture any number of scenarios detailing How This Can Go Wrong doesn't change the fact that the person triggering the system is violating traffic laws in the first place. Try following traffic laws. Seriously. You'd be amazed at how well the universe keeps from collapsing on itself when one follows the speed limit, signals lane changes, and maintains adequate braking distance.
On a side note, these aren't all that new--they have 'em in Alexandria, VA, and Bethesda has something similar (warning lights flash at you if you're going too fast.)
This is the Problem Here (Score:2, Insightful)
It's intrinsically wrong to punish other people for one person's crime. One idiot blazes through a bunch of traffic but everyone has to stop for his speed-induced red light? Aren't there enough causes of road rage already?
Re:Danger (Score:4, Insightful)
if the traffic signals stop rewarding speeders by making them miss a light, then the speeders will slow down.
These are already in use all over NoVA (Score:3, Insightful)
These lights are in heavy use in Northern Virginia. They are mostly in place around residential neighborhoods to keep speeds and road noise down. They also double as extra safety, as kids are around.
It's a lot easier to time crossing an intersection if you know that all the cars are going one speed or slower. This is true wether you are walking across it or making a turn in a car at said intersection.
The biggest concern are Kids. They are careless. They may look left then right, but if they see a car FAR off to the left, they won't pay any attention to it...even if it is going 90mph and will overtake them before they can cross the road.
Re:Danger (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is poposterous. Not only will it not slow people down other than while approaching lights they've remembered do this, just to speed through even faster when they get close enough to get away with it. It's been proven by scientific studies that people are more likely to speed due to a stopsign or stoplight because the subconciously feel the need to make up for lost time.
There are far too many risks to just implement this willy-nilly. The parent brings up a good point with timing, how can you be sure you won't cause an accident by going red so quickly that they can't stop? People are not going to be prepared for this behavior, it's likely to cause mass confusion and accidents during it's implementation.
I'd rather see automated ticket-writing machines than this... as much as I'm against automated ticket-writing.
Jamon
Re:what about other drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't peer pressure a good motivator? Now, speeding will not only get you more redlights (making it, in fact, take longer to get anywhere the faster you go), but you also run the risk of being the jackass that stopped all traffic.
Seems to me that this solves the speeding problem in a way that doesn't involve fines, which have had almost no effect.
More social engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that they do this is that they're addicted to traffic ticket revenue, which is essentially a randomly-enforced "tax lottery" - especially in my area where average highway traffic moves at 80 MPH+ (I've been "going with the flow" along with two dozen other drivers at 95+ in the city). I'm just waiting for them to pair this up with red-light cameras and 2-second yellow lights for the ultimate in revenue generation...
Yes, this sounds cynical (and it is), but if these jackasses were really interested in little things like public safety then they'd probably put some actual effort into designing safe intersections, traffic interchanges, force land developers to plan traffic flow, setting speed limits that are reasonable, etc.
Re:Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you... it's hard to come up with any good reason why this isn't a good idea. Follow the damn law.
Re:Another solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And the documentation you mention would be...
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
if you always get a negative reinforcement for an action, operant conditioning will cause the drivers to slow down. tickets and cops are not regular enough to train people to stop.
Re:Another solution looking for a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
So this new gadget becomes a stop sign for speeders, and actually smooths out traffic flow for the residents.
Seems like the local community wins with this new stop light/traffic signal.
Better Way (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a civil engineer or city planner or anything, but I've seen well planned traffic light systems and I know what they look like. People move through stopping AS LITTLE as possible. It is easier on vehicles, safer for drivers, and much less stressful to drivers if they can just get up to speed and maintain it. This light is all for show as it will probably be more detrimental than helpful. It is just a way for local government to wave its dick without accomplishing... well, dick.
Re:great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Could be a revenue generating device... Turns red and you suddenly get a ticket for running the light, too.
My main worry is that it's going to punish other drivers and screw up traffic flow. There are a few lights near where I live, which I truly despise (first off: I'm a bit spoiled because we have sensors which may switch the light for you if nobody is coming from ther other directions) because they take ages to change, usually posisitioned strategically near a mall or a shopping center. Further mucking about with these timings could lose sympathy with voters.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that:
In other words, it's fixing a problem that doesn't exist and is only meant to make people feel better.
Re:I saw this (Score:5, Insightful)
You're coming up to the intersection, the light changes, either because the cycle changes, or because a speeder has triggered it. br>
In neither case does the speeder (or anyone else) know where the signal is in its cycle.
So it changes as he approaches. Big deal.
without-warning red light
if you RTFA, it specifically says there is a yellow pahse before the red.
Re:Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:5, Insightful)
Want a real safety precaution? Scare people straight. Make all the roads' speed limits something like the "safe and prudent" stuff they use in remote rural areas. Then, impose a severe penalty for unsafe driving. If you cause an accident, you lose your license for a year. Cause another one, make it 5 years. Drive without a license? No license ever again, and 1 year in prison. Drunk driving? Go for it, but stay in your lane and don't wreck. Kill someone, and you get a minimum of 3rd-degree murder. I'd guess that'd be about 30-50 years in prison.
Basically, drive at your own risk, 'cause the government is done babysitting your cellphone-talking, makeup-applying, shaving, radio-retuning, newspaper-reading, kid-slapping, drowsy, drunk, high, and/or just-plain-stupid ass. You are responsible for your own actions, whether you like it or not.
Of course, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave, abode of the irresponsible. It'll never happen.
Re:I saw this (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. officer of course got an earful about how I "stopped suddenly" and there was no way she could stop that quickly. His response: "he did". She was cited and her Honda Accordian (yes, I know crumple zones are a safety feature, but boy they fold up real pretty) was totalled with her insurance company upset about an "at fault" accident. (So much so she tried to sue me, but the lawyer folded the instant he got the details of a stalled vehicle in the road).
Moral of the story: give yourself a safe stopping distance and you only have to worry about being rear ended by people who think they are too good to give *themselves* a safe stopping distance.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Another solution looking for a problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:what about other drivers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what about other drivers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hehehe. Iduno about where you're from, but here in San Francisco (and much of California), traffic laws aren't about solving "the speeding problem." They're about solving the budget problem. Fines are designed to not solve the speeding problem, as that would reduce their ability to fine...
Re:Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:3, Insightful)
Want proof? Look at how many times local law enforcement gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, changing speed limits, moving stop signs, and in general, making traffic laws become a big fat cash cow instead of a safety precaution.
Err, not to be rude, but how is this proof of anything? It's just a blanket statement with nothing to back it up. No logic, no links to studies, etc.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally when you speed nothing bad happens. You don't generally get stopped, you don't generally get a ticket. With a single punishment for every 300 times you do something, there is a disconnect.
With the light trick it happens every time. By trying to go faster you are forced to wait out the light so you get where you are going later than you would have had you driven the speed limit. Every time. Which sucks. So you learn. Fast.
People slow down in town without those pesky (and expensive) tickets, cops are free to go do real police work catching bad guys, damn - I think this is brilliant. Sure beats getting a $100 photo-radar ticket in the mail.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:4, Insightful)
but it is not "negative reinforement." Negative reinforcement is removing something from the environment (Negative) to increase a behavior (Reinforcement).
This would be considered "Positive Punishment." Introducing something in the environment (Positive; in this case a ticket for running the red light) to decrease a behavior (Punishment; in this case speeding).
The changing of the light is the discriminative stimulus letting the driver know they are about to be punished if they run the light.
There ya go, 3 free Intro Psych credits
jeff
Re:great! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter. This will go over like a lead baloon. Cops don't want people to slow down. How would they raise revenue? If cops really wanted to stop speeders, all they have to do is drive one marked police car though the area at the posted speed limit. No one will pass them. Instead, they hide in alleys and behind bushes waiting to jump out and fine people. Isn't it obvious what their real motivation is?
Wouldn't he/she just run the light? (Score:3, Insightful)
Safety-wise -- the only way this would be safe is if no other light change until the speeder either stops fully or exits the intersection (having run the light). If drivers in the other direction are given an early green, that would be a recipe for disaster.
It all balances out.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can also see this system training people to apply a burst of speed once they get to a certain point before the intersection, after the timing of the light has subconciously set in to the brain.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
While speed limits make sense in many situations, they don't always.
There are plenty of places that I can point to where speed limits are entirely too low. That is to say it is perfectly safe given normal driving conditions (no fog, dry or even slightly wet roads) to go 15-20 MPH over the posted speed limit.
This is both in town and out. In fact, I can say from my own experience, as someone who regularly "speeds" that about 95% of the time that I have had a close call with a pedestrian or another car it has not involved speed, but rather has involved crowded intersections where traffic is moving well below posted speed limits where it is needed for the driver to track moving objects in several places.
(Cars in 2 other lanes of trafic, and pedestrians walkin gou tinto the street with abandon etc)
The simple fact is that speed limits are usually sweeping "30 in the city" which are really only needed in certain places within the city. Most wide city roads are no more dangerous at 45 than they are at 30, except when traffic is too heavy to do 45 anyway, in which case it self limits to safe speeds anyway.
All in all I agree this is a fine solution to real speeding... but generally speaking I think that speed limits are set too low for normal conditions and I shudder to think what decreasing the speeds people drive in such a hevay handed and sweeping way will do to traffic around here during the time periods at the ends of rush hour where speeds are starting to naturally pick back up.
-Steve
Swell (Score:3, Insightful)
Now technology proposes to eliminate this source of revenue too? What the hell is wrong with these people, are they a bunch of communists?!
hrmm (Score:3, Insightful)
The cops will love this ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The city will love this because they collect more money from fines.
The laywers will love this because they will have more clients who will pay more to try and get out of two moving violations instead of just one.
Great idea!
Re:Fruitless? (Score:2, Insightful)
no... speed limits simply haven't kept up. sure, back in the day 35mph made sense in a lot of places. cars travelling faster than that were dangerous. today those same roads can be safely navigated at 45 or 50 mph thanks to improved vehicle technology.
as for the problem being that everyone speeds.. i think that's looking at it completely backwards. If everyone were driving the same speed, roadways would be a far safer place, even if that speed were 10 or 20mph over the posted limits. a river with a flat bed flows smoothly. random rocks jutting to the surface disrupt that smoothness. would you rather take a canoe down a smooth flowing river, or one with violent rapids?
drivers will always drive at whatever speed they feel appropriate. when you take that into account, it's only logical to adapt to those speeds so the roadways will be a safer place for all.
Re:More social engineering (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it does. You said so.
over a 40 mile stretch of road between cities, the speeder going 15 mph faster than the other driver will only arrive ~7.5 minutes earlier
Backing in your numbers, you are comparing are 65 mph to 80 mph, so the 15mph difference is a 25% increase in speed, which results in a 25% decrease in time. The implication you are apparently making is that a 25% reduction in time is insignificant. Over an hour, that's 15 minutes. Over two, it's half an hour. If your argument is that 7.5 minutes is insignificant (which is subjective and arguable), then, possibly, in your very specific example, you might be right. But a specific case does not prove a generality.
IF he kept his speed constant never slowing below the 15+mph he has on the other driver
Your calculation is meaningless unless you're using average speed, so this is implied.
slowing for other traffic obeying the law or not as brazen will significantly reduce that time saved
Again, you have to assume average speed or the calculation is meaningless. Any conditions which slow the driver down throw your 15mph difference out the window. If he can go faster, he gets there faster. If he can't, he doesn't.
People who speed all the time are usually not bright enough to understand that concept anyways.
Possibly because they understand the concept of physics.
Note: this is not a defense of reckless driving which is not necessarily a function of speed compared to an arbitrary limit. There are times when 80mph is not reckless and times when 25mph is.
Re:All over the place over here (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aww, unfair to speeders! (Score:3, Insightful)
Take for instance highway driving. On the highway I drive regularly people *always* speed. And it's not just a few, no, the majority of people go 20 km/h over the limit (120 km/h), a smaller group go 130-140 km/h regularly (third lane, or even second lane depending on the day), and very very very few people go the limit, 100 km/h.
So you have all these weeny do gooders who had the limit lowered from 135 or so to 100 to "improve safety", when in actual fact the speed on the road as not changed much! All that has changed is that cops can now harass you easier. Not all traffic laws are correct.
City street limits are usually ok, but even those can be unreasonable in many cases. For instance, there is one road near by that is *four* lanes wide. What is the speed limit on this road? 40 km/h, for a LONG LONG distance as well. Completly unreasonable for a four lane road. The result? No one travels it. It is pretty much a useless road except for the area residents, who certainly don't need 4 lanes.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All over the place over here (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, of course. Occasionally, we also have little extra signposts which dynamically advise you of the correct speed ( < speed limit, obviously) to get the next light in time.
The two systems aren't contradictory, though, they complement each other fairly well. Synchronized lights work extremely well in urban areas with a lot of traffic, on main roads. The system referred to in this story works very well in rural areas, where there aren't that many traffic lights to start with.
Re:Timing it right could be tricky (Score:2, Insightful)
So, the guy thats trying to beat the early red light , toasts the guy, who's getting a green corossing signal.
Great use of technology.