Los Angeles To Turn Off Traffic-Light Cameras 367
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Los Angeles Police Commission has voted to kill the city's controversial red-light camera program, rejecting claims that the system makes streets safer while costing the city nothing. The police department says the cameras help reduce accidents, largely by deterring drivers looking to run red lights or make illegal turns while critics of the technology question officials' accident data, saying the cameras instead cause rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes and liken the cameras to Big Brother tactics designed to generate revenues. More than 180,000 motorists have received camera-issued tickets since the program started in 2004 but the commission estimates that the program costs between $4 million and $5 million each year while bringing in only about $3.5 million annually. Members of the public who attended the meeting urged the commission to do away with the cameras, which trigger seemingly boundless frustration and anger among drivers in traffic-obsessed LA. 'It's something that angers me every time I get in my car,' says Hollywood resident Christina Heller. 'These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser. And they do not do anything to improve safety.'"
LA - a large red light district? (Score:3, Funny)
Does this mean that LA is or was a large red light district?
Confront your accuser? (Score:5, Insightful)
These cameras remove our fundamental right in this country to confront our accuser.
Whatever the other arguments are, this one is stupid. It's a photograph of you running a red light. What's to confront? She either means that it removes your right to try to intimidate (or otherwise coerce) an officer into not issuing a ticket, or that it removes your right to most of the time get away with dangerous driving. Neither of these is a right.
Re:Confront your accuser? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Its not a picture of you. Its a picture of a car and its license plate.
2. The plate is read with OCR, sometimes its wrong.
3. How do you know the camera is set up correctly? How do you know the timing is correct?
4. How about extenuating circumstances. In DC, I moved out of the way of an ambulance, into the intersection. That triggered the red light camera. Then I was blocking traffic, so the safest thing to do was continue with an illegal right on red. I got 2 tickets. The camera could not testify to any of this happening, where a cop would have been able to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. There are multiple videos taken. Intersection/context of the violation (you crossing the line with the light red), front (including face), rear, and of the red light. If you still feel that it's not you driving the car, then you fill out the affidavit of non-liability on the back of the ticket that is mailed to you.
2. Then challenge it. If the plate doesn't match, or is ambiguous enough that the OCR is incorrect, other evidence likely supports it. While statistically still possible, the likelihood th
Re: (Score:2)
Usually you can't challenge until later. This is the problem with the cameras (at least where I live in Chicagoland). You are essentially guilty by default. They expect you to pay no matter what without a trial. You can appeal, however it is already after you have paid the ticket. I think that they get around the whole PITA 6th amendment thing because it is not a 'crime' per se, but rather an administrative issue when you are caught. If you choose not to pay the fine, then they will
Re: (Score:2)
You post bail in the amount of the fine. You go to trail. If you win, you get your bail back. It's no different then any other traffic court fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is sort of like parking tickets. If your car is parked somewhere that results in a ticket, you're expected to pay by default. There isn't really anything fundamentally different about this. A parking enforcement officer could also screw up reading the plates.
The technology isn't perfect, but neither are forms of enforcement that involve people.
Ultimately, this sounds a lot more like people that are mad about no longer being able to endanger other people's lives by running red lights without having to
Re: (Score:2)
The cameras in LA do not shoot video. They take 1 or 2 still shots of the car and its plate and their relationship to the boundary line of the intersection. There is no context.
Re:Confront your accuser? (Score:4, Insightful)
Insurance companies are in the business of betting against having to pay a claim. In order to prevent these payouts, insurance companies routinely look for ways to make improvements in safety and survivability in crashes. The IIHS not only encourage better law enforcement in order to lower the number of careless drivers, they also lobby against bad automotive designs like those spare tires that hang on the back of SUVs which causes large dollar amount damages if the SUV was involved in a parking lot fender bender.
This isn't some shadowy conspiracy group. It just so happens that what benefits the insurance companies also benefit us.
As for your other assertions, I haven't seen any data that explicitly states that speeding is safe. I have seen data that shows that speeding is one of the causes listed for auto accidents. Insurance companies profit from red light cameras because the total of accidents at intersections is predicted to go down which lowers the amount of money they have to pay out. They get way more profit from not having to pay on an auto policy during that fiscal year than they could ever collect from that single driver with a higher insurance rate. Not to mention, higher insurance rates occur after the insurance company paid a claim and therefore this higher rate is used to not only compensate for a loss in investment (it is a numbers game) but also apparent increase in risk. My auto insurance policy does not automatically increase in cost after an accident. My daughter totaled one of my cars, so I am thankful for that. Anyway, I just don't see how this "red light conspiracy" could even be profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies are in the business of betting against having to pay a claim.
You're correct. So by classifying these red-light runners or speeders as "more dangerous" despite the fact that there is little evidence suggesting that they actually cost more, they are playing with the odds. These drivers have to pay more, while not actually costing the company the difference. In roulette, the odds of landing on black are (roughly) 2 to 1. What if I could arbitrarily change the payout to 10 to 1, then bet on black all day? It sure would increase my winnings.
Re: (Score:2)
they also lobby against bad automotive designs like those spare tires that hang on the back of SUVs which causes large dollar amount damages if the SUV was involved in a parking lot fender bender.
Point of order here...
Anecdotal, but years ago, I had that spare tire save me from enduring a metric ton of damage once. I was in a 1979 Jeep CJ-7 with friends out cruising. I was just about to pull out at a fresh green light when a pickup truck slammed into the back of me. It wasn't his fault, as a drunk driver slammed into his backside.
I had the clutch in at the time, so all we got was a hard jolt and a bit of forward roll until I applied the brakes. The truck behind me had his grille and radiator caved i
Re: (Score:3)
Actually I was talking about the SUV models that the IIHS specifically cited in their 5 mph rear collision test with a light pole.
The results were:
Between 1999 and 2003, out of the 10 most expensive SUVs to fix from that same crash test (that we could find records on) as tested by the IIHS, 7 of them had the spare tire hanging on the end gate. Those vehicles (and the damage they sustained) included the Isuzu Trooper ($3,317), Mitsubishi Montero ($2,961), Toyota RAV4 ($2,719), Honda CR-V (2.727), Land Rov
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that you also asserted that speeding causes accidents? The premise of your argument is that the majority of the drivers on the road speed, and therefore when they encounter someone going the speed limit there is a chance of colliding with the slower car or having to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid colliding with the slower car.
It's a nice spin for an attemp
Re:Confront your accuser? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Its not a picture of you. Its a picture of a car and its license plate.
I do not know of USA, but here if the driver cannot be identified then the owner is legally responsible of the fines. Of course, if he can prove that someone else was the driver it then gets passed to the driver. Apart from theft, it is pretty sure to say that the owner knows who was driving the car and can discuss the matter with him.
2. The plate is read with OCR, sometimes its wrong.
I am pretty sure you can ask for the picture to check it yourself and correct the OCR. It would be better if the fines were served with a printout of the picture attached to it, to simplify things (I do not know if this is done or not).
3. How do you know the camera is set up correctly? How do you know the timing is correct?
The only thing that should really matter if is the camera is only triggered while the light is red (v.g., by the cable that powers the red light runs through the camera and activates it). Way better if the camera is set so you see in the picture both the car and the red light.
About the settings, I think these cameras must be networked. And if not, when the crew in charge of downloading the pics come, they must check that evertything is ok. Anyway, if the camera date/time is incorrectly set, it can only benefit you ("but your honour, if the date/time is not set correctly I can not verify this proof so it must be invalidated").
4. How about extenuating circumstances. In DC, I moved out of the way of an ambulance, into the intersection. That triggered the red light camera. Then I was blocking traffic, so the safest thing to do was continue with an illegal right on red. I got 2 tickets. The camera could not testify to any of this happening, where a cop would have been able to.
I agree with that, a limitation of automatic systems is that they do what they are programmed to do, without any common sense. For your case it might have been possible to ask for the previous pictures from the camera to check your story, but even winning that would mean a lot more work than explaining to a cop (provided that the cop had not seen it himself).
In the USA... (Score:2)
1. Its not a picture of you. Its a picture of a car and its license plate.
I do not know of USA, but here if the driver cannot be identified then the owner is legally responsible of the fines. Of course, if he can prove that someone else was the driver it then gets passed to the driver. Apart from theft, it is pretty sure to say that the owner knows who was driving the car and can discuss the matter with him.
In the USA, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defense is under no obligation to prove anything. Most defenses consist simply or raising doubt. Here, there is a presumption of innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty."
Therefore, any "reasonable doubts" raised and believed by even one reasonable person on a jury of peers, usually 12 people total, (and here, a jury can be called for any matter more than $20) will fail to result in a guilty verdict.
So, if the prosecution cannot prove that I am the driver, they would have a harder time winning a case if I took it to jury (IANAL). If I had an alibi, or even the suggestion that "I leave my keys on the counter and often let my neighbor borrow my truck," and have no recollection of what happened on that particular day, I could use such information to sow doubt to be found not guilty without even proving that I'm innocent. I'm sure 1001 explanations could be found, none of which I have to prove, but my lawyer can merely suggest as "reasonable doubts".
Re: (Score:3)
4. In California, most yellow lights are set to be illegally short - there are laws governing how long a yellow light must last depending on the speed limit. Additionally, many speed limits in California are illegally low (this is bizarre, but true). Taking a video of the yellow light, time-stamping the beginning and end of it, and bringing it to court will get people out of most tickets where the light just changed, but the amazing thing is that the judge won't order for the yellow light to be lengthened
Re: (Score:3)
Which is exactly how it's done in my town. And you get sent a link to the video that you can review with your fine... just ask my wife. Why do the GP and GGP assume that it's not that way in LA?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or have they shortened it because *everybody* for whatever reason is running through the orange light right up to the end, making it almost* useless to begin with? I'm a rather sceptical guy, but sometimes you have to wonder if you are skeptical or paranoid - is there really a conspiracy to get you fined? Maybe you should check with the people that represent you what has been discussed before jumping into conclusions like this.
When I was living in Ireland, the orange lights were on for much shorter and the
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic that such a comment was from an Anonymous Coward... ironic because Red Light cameras are essentially Anonymous Cowards, too.
It's not making money (Score:2)
So it's not making money. Surprising and rare (since red light cameras are generally a cash-cow), but I'd guess that's the main reason to kill it. If it were making $10 a year I bet they'd keep it going.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is a cash cow for the traffic light camera companies and not the cities, and that more and more cities are just now waking up to that fact.
I'd like to say that some cities are doing away with traffic light cameras because it is the right thing to do, but the reality is that they really don't make much money (if at all) from the system.
Re:It's not making money (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's not making money.
I'm not really clear on why that's part of the decision. Since when does anything the police do have to turn a profit?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since the entire system was pitched to them as a way to
1) Increase revenues
2) Reduce police workload
3) Make intersections safer
It does none of those things and evidently costs the city money annually on top of that. The only things that they do seem to do is
1) Make money for operators
2) Piss off everyone else.
3) Erode your rights
Re: (Score:3)
1) Make money for operators
2) Piss off everyone else.
3) Erode your rights
4) Tie up the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
tradeoffs (Score:3)
So which is better, a rear-end collision outside the intersection, or a broadside collision inside the intersection?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or one casualty in an ambulance, because the driver could not make way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a bullshit question. Read-end collisions are caused by idiots hitting you from behind. It's not like they wouldn't have hit you if you stopped for some other reason.
However, ultimately the question is not whether they prevent accidents, bring in revenue, or make the sun shine brighter. The only question to answer is do the voters want them. If the majority of people (not the majority of people complaining, but the majority of people voting) want them, then they should stay. If they don't, then the
Re: (Score:2)
Another person who believes in democracy. I don't know what local and state laws are, but most are set up as a republican form of government. In other words, it doesn't matter how many people support something if it violates your individual rights. I don't care if 99% of people support censorship if it's forbidden in the constitution. So the real question is, does having red light cameras violate your individual rights?
Re:tradeoffs (Score:4, Informative)
The Federal Highway Administration found [tfhrc.gov] that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, lengthening the yellow light probably increases running red lights as people think they have more time to get through. The better way to reduce accidents is to increase the all-red time of the intersection.
Re:tradeoffs (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, lengthening the yellow light probably increases running red lights as people think they have more time to get through. The better way to reduce accidents is to increase the all-red time of the intersection. *citation needed*
Actually in a test done in California, lengthening the yellow lights by 1 second reduced left turn violations by 80% to 85%, and reduced straight through violations by 92%. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3055.asp [thenewspaper.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But this causes less tickets. So cities shorten the yellow light instead.
Then this causes real, significant risk to human lives:
HOW do you make way for an ambulance? There is no proof to defend you, and even if there was (say, ambulance logs) obtaining them is a great hassle and will probably cost more (in lost work time) than the ticket. So, drivers aware of that will just flip a bird to the ambulance driver and wait patiently for the red light while the accident victim dies in the ambulance.
Re: (Score:2)
You're begging the question here. Lengthening the all red time has the problem of decreasing the volume of traffic that can go through a given intersection in a given time. I realize that it's popular on libertarian slashdot to view this as being all about making money, but most police officers would be more than happy to never write another ticket and never make another arrest if there was nobody out there committing the infractions that would result in those situations. If the city council is wanting to s
Re: (Score:2)
No, that just makes it more likely that people will try to zip through since they perceive it as having more time. What you actually want to increase is the delay between when one light goes red and the other goes green.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get whiplash when you're hit from behind. At least not with cars made in recent years. You get whiplash when hit from the front or possibly sides. Cars going back to at least the '80s had head rests which prevented the head from moving backward far enough to cause whiplash. But forward and to the side there is no such protection. Airbags help a bit, but you're not typically going to see the amount of damage that you would from a side impact.
So, ultimately, if you're going to be hit, being hit from
Facing your accuser (Score:5, Insightful)
The accuser is the local government. The evidence is the red light camera's photo.
If you robbed a bank, or shot someone, and it was photographed or recorded, you wouldn't be arguing that the evidence was inadmissible because you couldn't challenge the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with red light cameras is lack of context; the camera triggers because you were in the intersection during a defined time period, but it doesn't know and cannot see *why* you were in the intersection at that time.
Re:Facing your accuser (Score:4, Informative)
From LA's Photo Red Light FAQs [lapdonline.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit. Last sentence was mine. Not the FAQ.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that shows what you were doing at the exact moment you were passing through the intersection. The problem is you get the ticket in the mail a week or two later. Can you remember what exactly you were doing at the time? The camera has perfect recollection of every person who drives through the intersection. You however do not h
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter why you were in the intersection, you still have to clear the intersection before the red light. The only way in which this could result in somebody getting a ticket would be if they were turning left and couldn't get clear the intersection because some asshole was trying to run the light themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not always...
From here [lapdonline.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone broke into a store at night and there was video evidence of the burger's face, front and back of his car, and him breaking the window, you don't think that would be enough to convict?
I'm not in favor of the cameras, and luckily my town doesn't use them. But I wouldn't say that it's not a fair system unless there isn't mechanism in place to dispute the ticket. In LA's case at least, there are multiple levels that it can be disputed between signing an affidavit that it's not you, asking for an of
Re: (Score:2)
As has been stated many times it isn't a single still photograph, it is multiple video feeds.
As provided by another poster:
From LA's Photo Red Light FAQs [lapdonline.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your argument is incredibly naive or indicative of some sort of bias.
What a moronic statement. The original complaint that you can't confront your accuser is the statement that shows bias. Why on earth would anyone feel the need to confront an inanimate object? Do you think the camera might have it in for ethnic minorities? Or perhaps it might have been distracted by something happening behind it and it wasn't really looking?
Confronting an accuser makes sense if the accuser is a human. If it is a camera, then it can be calibrated and regularly tested. We don't need to ask qu
Re: (Score:2)
So would you be happy to be one of the people who dies on the road for my right to free speech? Seriously???
I can understand that we should be able to have these discussions about road safety and police practices. As you say, in a democratic society this is a fundamental right. But it is not right to yell fire in a theatre because it will endanger people's lives. It is not right make libelous, false statements like "Mr Anonymous Coward is a kiddy fiddler. He lives at 22 Main Street and everyone should hunt
Traffic Light Safety (Score:5, Interesting)
I always thought a good idea would be to put a yellow line in the road before a traffic light to indicate that if you are travelling the speed limit and are beyond this line and the light turns yellow you can safely make it through the light. If you have not passed the line than you should stop for the light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'll see caution signs at some intersections that say, "Prepare to stop when flashing." That's basically what you're thinking of, only the flashing light on the sign is a guarantee that you're not going to make it through the intersection before the light turns red, so you might as well take your foot off the accelerator now.
Re:Traffic Light Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping distance has absolutely nothing to do with the proposal. The line indicates where you need to be to keep going at the speed limit and make it through the light during the yellow cycle.
Stopping time is an entirely different matter, already addressed in the rules for yellow light timing in Section 21455.7 of the CA vehicle code. The problem here, though, is that nearly every major city has yellow lights set to illegally short times.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you account for different vehicles with different weights, braking distances, etc? It's like the yellow "suggested speed" signs they use on curves, etc. They're really only a good guideline for a small subset of vehicles (usually trucks or other top-heavy vehicles).
Those "suggested speed" signs are for the worst case scenario. The yellow light should be the same. If a semi can't safely stop before the light turns red, the yellow is too short.
On a side note: I wonder how those red light camera's work on semis. Since they are hauling a trailer, it must be very difficult to track down the violator. Since they are so heavy, they're also the most likely violator. I know in Chicago, bus driver's already have issues with red light cameras. [myfoxchicago.com]
Makes Sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I moved to Los Angeles in the late nineties and left before these traffic cameras were operational. When I first arrived, I noticed that people would collectively pause at a green light. It would be a one or two second delay which completely baffled me. In New England, we'd jump the greens like a drag race.
The answer came rather fast. In a lot of the intersections, there were no green arrows so in some places the only way for people to get across the street was to run a red light. And not just one person would run the light, but four or five. It was crazy but in time, it made complete sense to me and soon I internalized it. So I can imagine the outrage if there were now cameras placed at intersections. It's like paying a toll to cross the street. Maybe things have changed since then, but it seemed pure insanity not to have green arrows considering the amount of people in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in plenty of LA and NYC traffic where the only way to move forward is to block the box and get caught. How many times have you seen three directions feeding into the forth. When that forth has congestion your stuck ending up mid intersection on a red in bumper to bumper traffic or not moving as the far side will never be clear. Hell if you do not move immediately traffic will flow around you to fill that void.
My favorite traffic camera was I got a ticket for my black sedan when I was nowhere ne
Re: (Score:2)
In a lot of the intersections, there were no green arrows so in some places the only way for people to get across the street was to run a red light. And not just one person would run the light, but four or five.
I spent some time in LA last year and it was still like that. I remember the first time the light turned red when I was waiting to turn left, drivers on the other side of the street waved at me to go on the red light. It's really counterintuitive at first but it makes a lot of sense after a few times.
It's just important not to continue doing this outside LA.
They do work if used where they are needed (Score:2)
Yet too many cities buy into the sales pitch about the revenue side. The revenue of course only lasts until people become accustomed to the lights and suddenly, surprise surprise they don't run the lights anymore which fulfills the lie used to sell them to the public while at the same time ending the revenue which was the selling point for the officials to put them in.
We have them at two intersections I drive through regularly and since your used to them you know to not expect people to run them, including
Shortening Yellow Lights (Score:2)
I can't speak about L.A., but when they installed traffic light cameras in my city they shortened all the yellow lights as well. This makes it blatantly obvious that it is nothing more than a revenue generator.
Re: (Score:2)
The period of time on amber should be legally defined. If it's greater or equal to that, it's fine. If it's shorter than that, it's illegal and you'd be able to contest the fine. If the legal minimum period is insanely short, the rules need changing.
Data about the Crashes and Safety Implications (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You're talking too sanely. This sounds like a case of too many narcissistic people not taking enough responsibility for their own actions. If there's a rear-end collision because somebody braked approaching a junction then it means the person behind was following too closely, not paying sufficient attention, driving too quickly, etc, etc. Having driven in LA I can attest to a culture of tail-gating and trying to drive too quickly for the conditions. Up the penalties if people won't or can't take respons
One could argue... (Score:2)
All other arguments to one side (I appreciate there are other reasons why it's suggested the cameras should be pulled) but public safety isn't supposed to be profitable, is it?
Conflicted (Score:2)
The best way to reduce crashes... (Score:2)
I'm guessing the majority of nasty accidents at intersections result from people trying to catch the tail end of the light... esp when combined with people who are getting a jump on the green.
1) Long yellow-light durations. You'll speed through a light that's just turned yellow, but you'll stop at a light that's been yellow for a while. My hometown (Fremont) found that adjusting this setting reduced red-light running by much more than installing intersection cameras: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/343 [thenewspaper.com]
Eh? (Score:2)
Would somebody like to point out that they don't CAUSE accidents because people slam on their brakes - that's due, exclusively, to already-bad drivers (of the kind that the system is designed to catch / remove / discourage) having insufficient braking distance between them and the car in front and is a phenomenon that will happen even if the red light didn't exist (e.g. if a child ran out into that road every two minutes or whatever).
So the police's response is to abandon the cameras? Don't catch one kind
Re: (Score:2)
"Would somebody like to point out that they don't CAUSE accidents because people slam on their brakes"
I was getting ready to do just that, but as you've beat me to it I'll just rant here.
Attention stupid drivers: if the car in front of you came to a sudden stop at the very limit of its mechanical ability, would you be able to stop before hitting it? If not, you're TOO FUCKING CLOSE.
(Also, if you're actually reading this while driving, you should probably be paying more attention to the road.)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen red-light cameras go here in the uk - but very rarely and due to idiots. I've seen plenty of junctions where I wish they had them because people repeatedly run the red lights. I don't think they have slowed the yellow light time down in the UK, which seems to be the biggest grievance. That's like putting speed cameras in that trigger below the proscribed limit...
Re: (Score:3)
Would somebody like to point out that they don't CAUSE accidents because people slam on their brakes - that's due, exclusively, to already-bad drivers
In theory yes, in practice not necessarily so. If people do something completely unpredictable then there is additional brain lag to comprehend that the person is not touching their brake and continuing as you would expect but coming to a complete stop for no apparent reason.
One time I was on a motorway in the middle lane, following a car at 130km/h, and the g
Bad Christina Heller .. go sit in the corner! (Score:2)
Bzzt!!! Wrong. It is common practice that each ticket is signed by a real person who has reviewed the evidence gathered by the camera. That person may be called to the stand. The staff that maintain the cameras may be called to the stand to discuss how they are maintained. Experts can be brought to the stand to discuss how the cameras work. Each camera has
I live in LA. (Score:3)
And I can state the following observations:
1. Different areas of the greater LA area show different driving habits. Some areas have a (well-deserved) reputation for aggressive drivers, such as the Westside, compared to more sparsely populated, remote suburbs. Higher traffic density seems to correlate with more reckless driving.
2. Some yellow lights are abnormally short for the size of the intersection, but not all.
3. Some drivers are willfully reckless/stupid. Just last night, I was in downtown LA for an event that included street closures as well as a heavy police presence. Due to the crowds, traffic was very bad. Despite the presence of police who would try to regulate the traffic flow when they were watching, drivers would allow themselves to get stuck in the intersection (driving ahead when the light was about to change, while seeing there was no room for them to exit). The police didn't cite them for blocking traffic.
4. I've seen a lot of broken red light cameras--they would flash when no violation occurred. This has actually happened to me personally; I'd go through a clear green light with the flow of traffic, and get flashed. No ticket was ever generated, but the kind of distraction and anxiety that this sort of thing produces is abusive and might actually cause some people to panic and hit the brakes.
5. The fines are insane--$475 or more in some cases. Thankfully I've never gotten one. I've seen the posted fine rise steadily in a few short years, and it seemed completely arbitrary. It also has little or no deterrent effect on the wealthiest Angelenos, who tool around Beverly Hills and Hollywood in their luxury vehicles and consider that kind of money to be chump change. It would be like telling you, "oh, you broke the law, now you have to pay a fine of $0.25." Meanwhile, they endanger everyone else around them. But if you are relatively poor, $475 could crush you.
6. The cameras are not everywhere. I've seen people reroute around them, causing changes in traffic patterns that may actually increase accidents because more cars are being directed to intersections that aren't able to handle the traffic flow, or have more pedestrians. Many drivers roll through four-way stops around here.
Re: (Score:3)
this
i see people run red lights literally 5 seconds or more after it turns red. plenty of time to stop. i laugh every time i see someone run a red light and get caught.
in NYC they made this the equivalent of a parking ticket so it goes against the car. kind of like a lien on real property making it easier to stick someone with a fine instead of proving who actually ran the light. lesson is don't lend your car to someone who will run red lights
Re: (Score:2)
I think it always works better in NYC because it's pretty rare that speeds are such that slamming on the breaks will actually cause a rear end and the plus side is saving pedestrian lives. As somebody who mainly walks in Manhattan I am all for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rear end collisions are caused by one thing.. following too close. I don't care if the guy in front hits a brick wall, If you keep your three seconds distance and pay attention, you won't rear end anybody.. The war ended 65 years ago. There is no need to keep such a tight formation
Re: (Score:3)
If you keep your three seconds distance and pay attention, you won't rear end anybody.
You've never been in a crowded city, have you? Maintaining a three second gap at 20mph would be 88 feet, or about 8 car-lengths. It would also require you to sit for 3 seconds at a light after the car in front of you moves.
Driving like that might get you beat up or shot in some cities.
Re:Protip: (Score:5, Insightful)
people who run red lights suck and all, but this isn't about safety. If it were about safety, the cameras would go into places where your safety is most likely to be compromised. For example, cameras would be on parking lots, etc, where people are robbed, abducted, attacked. The placement of red light cameras suggest that their purpose is to make money. They are put in places where there is a high probability of catching you doing something ticketable.
The red light camera companies are in it to make money off you. Where I live, a majority of the money goes not to the city, but to the company operating the red light cameras. They are heavily interested in making money by taking it from you. And guess what? Dishonest people who run the red lights and get camera tickets don't pay them. The only people who pay them are honest people. So these companies have found yet another way to extract money from hardworking people who perhaps misjudged a traffic light.
If a cop pulls you over for running a red light, that's one thing. He has an interest in preventing crime. The police officers I have talked to about this usually tell me that in most cases, unless the person was being reckless or was suspect (or treated the cop like a jerk), the person would be let go with a warning. He isn't getting richer by pulling you over. The police officer can make a judgement call. Many police officers are reasonable people who aren't trying to ruin your day.
The companies who run the red light cameras have the power and the incentive to be as harsh and unreasonable as possible. They want your money. It's all done via an automated process so there is no face to face contact with anyone, so no judgement call can be made.
If the local governments were in charge of operating the cameras I think many people would feel differently. I know I would. I mean I don't like the idea of the cameras, but at least the money isn't just making someone rich.
Re:Protip: (Score:5, Insightful)
No, if it were about safety, they would not be putting up cameras at all, but rather would be doing the one thing that has actually been proven to reduce red light violations: making the yellow cycle longer. Instead, they put in cameras to raise revenue, then make the yellow cycles as short as they can to maximize revenue. They also write tickets for provably safe violations like a rolling right turn just as the light turns red. And so on.
Want to improve road safety? Raise the minimum yellow cycle length to 7 seconds, or 10 seconds on roads with speeds of 40 MPH and up. Add a countdown timer above the light in large numbers that tells how long before the light turns red. Finally, add a minimum two-second all-ways-red cycle before the light in the other direction turns green.
It's about like the county Sheriff in Cupertino, CA ticketing people as they "jaywalk". It's a highly traveled corner, and despite not having a true pedestrian island, there are places that a pedestrian could go if they get stuck in the middle. People therefore walk halfway out while the left turn light is on. This allows them to be halfway to the other side when the light turns green. This is provably safe because (ignoring people turning right on red) no vehicle can legally cross that pedestrian crossing at that point in the cycle. In short, it's pure revenue generation.
And they ticketed my boss for not stopping long enough at a stop sign. The guy claimed that you need to stop for a full 5 seconds. If I stopped for 5 seconds, the people in the other direction would assume that I was yielding the right of way, and they would start driving the moment I did, and we'd probably have a wreck. I guarantee that the cop wouldn't have spent five seconds at that corner.
Ultimately, what needs to happen is this: police should not see one penny of traffic ticket revenue, and neither should cities. The state is licensing drivers, so the state should collect all of the revenue, and should distribute it proportionally by population. That would eliminate the incentive to write tickets for things that are not truly unsafe, and more to the point, would eliminate the incentive to reduce yellow cycles to unsafe levels to increase traffic camera revenue.
Re:Protip: (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there are certain situations where it's legal to run a red light because of safety concerns. The summary even mentions one: When slamming on your brakes (to stop in time for the light) would cause an accident.
But of course, the camera doesn't capture the scenario, just the fact that you ran a red light.
Some places have even been accused of shortening the yellow light to catch more people running reds. I don't know if these allegations were proven, but I do know that I've seen some ridiculously short yellows.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
that's why we have yellow lights to warn you of a red light coming up. of course if you're going 20 over the limit it means you have to slam your breaks
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen yellow lights that last from 1second to 5seconds
The one second yellows are mainly on the lights with cameras. I have also seen the ticket were a girl "ran the light" because her front bumper was in the cross walk.
I dont mind the cameras so much as the arbritary nature of what is considered an offense. Since it can only be a civil fine then the rules should be strict.
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen yellow lights that last from 1second to 5seconds
Watch the crosswalk signs, because most of them are automated to sync with the lights nowadays. When the "don't walk" signal stops flashing (i.e., goes to a solid "don't walk"), the light will generally turn yellow -- if not immediately, then within a few seconds. Based on whether the "don't walk" is flashing and your distance from the intersection, you can figure out whether a yellow light is something you need to worry about.
In any case, though, the lights are timed based on the speed limit for the road,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I got one on the east coast, because I couldn't see the light change. The NHTSA recommends at least 4.5 seconds at that intersection, based on the speed limit on that section of road, and the width of the intersection. The bare minimum to allow a driver to react to the light change is 3.5 seconds. The light is set to 3 seconds. At every intersection nearby of similar size characteristics, the yellow light is 5 to 6 seconds.
When I went through it, it was green when I couldn'
Re:Protip: (Score:4, Informative)
Some places have even been accused of shortening the yellow light to catch more people running reds. I don't know if these allegations were proven, but I do know that I've seen some ridiculously short yellows.
They most certainly have been proven [motorists.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The town I live in recently installed speed cameras for a couple school zones. They claim it's about safety, so I want to see the before- and after-camera statistics - how many pedestrians were saved from injury? Are incidents of other accidents on the rise? I suspect that information doesn't exist, though. (I got a ticket from one of them on a holiday. They're allowed to keep them on year-round, whether school is in session or not.)
If they really believe it's about safety, then they should prove it
Re: (Score:2)
That's just not the way traffic works. Traffic of any area has a personality of its own. The personality of traffic is a composition of the various moods and mindsets of the people behind the wheel. You can't "logic" or "reason" your way through a problem with a mob. And traffic is a mob. You might see a collection of individuals, but they are no more individual than a flock of birds.
When you learn to understand those dynamics and you will be closer to a real solution to any of the problems you see.
And
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you were making passage for a ambulance or policy vehicle, there will be witnesses and incident logs."
witnesses that they won't bother to find and incident logs that will be "unavailable" until after you go to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They caught some places reducing the time it stayed yellow when they installed the cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the problem with leaving space for stopping distance is that most of the time folks will
1 go around the car going "too slow" and slip into the gap
2 honk their horns (or worse) because you are going too slow (obviously if you have 3 or 4 car lengths between you and the next car you are going too slow)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Which is why in every state in the US I can think of, the guy who slammed into your back end is responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you aren't responsible for the actions of whoever is driving behind you. However it is suicidal to not be aware of what is behind you, as motorcyclists in particular will attest. However, it is becoming less the case that the person rear ending another is automatically at fault.
Case in point: I drive an 18 wheeler. Its equipped with forward facing camera, accelerometers, a radar system ( Eaton VORAD) and fairly extensive datalogging. Don't blindly assume my 80,000 lb. vehicle can stop short if you deci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As has been demonstrated experimentally countless times (by Consumer Reports among many others), ABS doesn't decrease stopping distance. It simply improves handling during a stop.