Red-Light Camera Grace Period Goes From 0.1 To 0.3 Seconds, Chicago To Lose $17 Million (arstechnica.com) 258
The Chicago Department of Transportation announced a new policy earlier this week that will increase the "grace period" -- the time between when a traffic light turns red to when a ticket is automatically issued. The decision has been made to increase the time from 0.1 seconds to 0.3 seconds, following recommendations part of a recent study of its red-light cameras. Ars Technica reports: This will bring the Windy City in line with other American metropolises, including New York City and Philadelphia. In a statement, the city agency said that this increase would "maintain the safety benefits of the program while ensuring the program's fairness." On Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune reported that the city would lose $17 million in revenue this year alone as a result of the expanded grace period. Michael Claffey, a CDOT spokesman, confirmed that figure to Ars. "We want to emphasize that extending this enforcement threshold is not an invitation to drivers to try to beat the red light," CDOT Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld also said in the statement. "By accepting the recommendation of the academic team, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to well-intentioned drivers while remaining focused on the most reckless behaviors."
Hey guys. (Score:3, Funny)
Did you hear?
Going faster through a red light means the camera won't get you!
Re:Hey guys. (Score:5, Funny)
You may have to go fast enough to red-shift the wavelength of the reflected light below infra-red. If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.
No-no-no, light speed is too slow! (Score:4, Funny)
Instant Cremation (Score:3)
If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.
Actually given the amount of air resistance and therefore friction at that speed the large plasma fireball which will surround you will make you very detectable, although not really identifiable, and your immediate problem will be avoiding instant cremation, not staying on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere between about 150-300 mph, the flat earth won't save you - Depending on the car, you might start heading up. And don't hit a speed bump [xkcd.com].
Re:Hey guys. (Score:4, Informative)
If you go fast enough. Yes.
I don't know for the US. But speed cameras in The Netherlands are usually certified up to 250km/h, but some are 350km/h now. If you go over that, the camera is not allowed to give you a ticket as it is not certified at those speeds.
But, if you go over 250 at most of our speed camera locations, you have other problems that involve death.
Re: (Score:3)
at first i thought this was retarded, but now i find it hilarious. i guess persistance pays off..
Conflict of interest (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like any fines going to the department that makes them fines is a conflict of interest. These things should clearly be decided by direct democracy, at least how the money is spent, and should not go to their budgets by default.
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:4, Insightful)
In Switzerland, the fines go into the municipality's budget.
Problem with that is that the municipalities have started budgeting the fines and are now treating them like normal income and thus the police receives quota.
Which leads to police putting mobile cameras where they can get most money not where there might be a security issue.
It also led to police wasting a lot of time on fines rather than actually doing important things.
I like the escrow idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The escrow idea really is very good. It's not supposed to be about money, after all. It's supposed to be about safety.
The problem in Switzerland, as presumably elsewhere, is that many towns are serously broke. The cantons dictate somewhere around 90% of a town's expenditures (welfare, schools, etc..). The other 90% is pretty inflexible as well: you've got to maintain your roads, water supply, and so forth. The town I'm in, with around 5000 inhabitants, is in the red every year, and the debt is getting ridic
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:4, Insightful)
easy solution, raise the taxes. if your taxes are not high enough to pay for Fire,Police and road maintenance then you should absolutely pay more.
If your taxes are not being used for that but instead, holiday decorations, more pay for someone to choose to buy more decorations then it's time to start voting for officials more wisely.
Yes, Yes, I know the irony of an American saying to vote more wisely to another country.... I'm not happy with our Toddler in Chief, but then he is not much different than the ones we have in congress and local government all over here. Recently in my home town we had one of the commissioners demand that a law be passed so that anyone in government can not be criticized or go to jail.
It seems that we either elect very evil people, or stupid ones that have never read the constitution. From my experience, it's the latter, only the dumb want to be in political office.
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely the first step isn't to raise taxes? That's the sort of thing somebody who hadn't thought things through says. That's like saying "well, I don't have enough money to pay my bills, guess I need to make more money". No, the first thing you do is look where the money is going and see if any of it is being wasted on unnecessary things. And if none of it is being wasted on pointless things, then look at why the things that it's being spent on cost as much as they do, and see if any of it is being wasted within those organizations. If there isn't a large amount of waste, only then should you look at raising taxes.
Why is it that there seems to be a large number of people who don't seem to care about waste? Like for example, the local schools where I live are constantly asking for more money. The local paper pulled up their staff list and found that there were 50% more administrators than school staff (administrators were considered people who weren't directly involved with students or the upkeep of the buildings). Surely you don't need more managers than employees? Raising taxes should be a last resort, not the first thing you jump to.
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:5, Interesting)
The lie that "it's only about safety" was disproven in Ohio. When the governor lost the first court battle with banning cameras, he proposed reducing state funding to cities who used cameras by the amount assessed in fines by the cameras. The immediate howling by the cities who obviously only cared about money was hilarious.
But... But... But.. It's about safety, not money... You get to keep your safe streets, but you can't profit from it. Bastards. It was obvious to everyone that it was always about the money.
Re: (Score:2)
In Switzerland, the fines go into the municipality's budget.
Lots of places do that, including the US, and not just with traffic fines. I suspect that in some area, if you were to eliminate fines, the city/county would go bankrupt.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention, if you *ENTER* the intersection on yellow it's perfectly legal, even if the light turns red once you're already in it.
The law states that the state of the light matters the moment you enter the intersection. Once you enter, you must exit the intersection as quickly as possible, but the light doesn't matter at that point. This is what also allows you to dwell in the intersection when making a left on green, and finish the turn when the light turns yellow->red.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state. For example, prior to 2014, Tennessee law didn't say that, and we were taught that unless you entered on green, you had to be clear of the light before it turned red, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
If you enter on yellow it should be because you were going to fast and were too close to stop safely, so leaving before it turns red shouldn't be a problem. People should be treating yellow lights as red lights with a grace period, not as the end of the green lights.
The real problem comes when people reduce the yellow light length after installing traffic cameras - that's just wrong.
in other countries (Score:2)
So basically all the money the government has collected as fines and penalties is distributed evenly to all taxpayers. That money was collected as compensation for crimes against society, and this way it gets distributed back to society.
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
Fines don't go to the department (e.g.: to the police)
Fines go to the public spending budget, so the country has more money to do things (in addition to the tax money), or more practically, gets less indebted to do the same things...
Re: (Score:2)
So basically all the money the government has collected as fines and penalties is distributed evenly to all taxpayers. That money was collected as compensation for crimes against society, and this way it gets distributed back to society.
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
Notice what what Kokuyo says about Switzerland in a post above.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how it works in other countries (e.g.: Switzerland).
There is a difference between local and national governments. If local governments receive the money they then have a vested interest in making sure that crimes are committed within their boundaries. Hence they can create dodgy local laws which many people will inadvertently break. National governments can't really do this because they set the laws for the entire nation which makes it a lot harder to do dodgy things like this because more people are watching them. In addition with their far larger budgets
Re: (Score:3)
I think you'll always have police groups lobbying for increased funding based on citation amounts generated, no matter where the money goes. If you put it into the general fund, they'll claim that increased spending on police budgets is net-zero budgeting because the spending is balanced by the citation payments. Even returned to the tax payer they will assume that the same amount as increased spending is offset by tax credits and not an additional tax burden.
I think the only sane solution is that fines a
Re: (Score:2)
But then the police here think they need Tanks, M16A4 fully automatic weapons, drones, bombers, orbital strike platforms......
When in reality, 90% of the police can barely handle a small caliber pistol safely, and they are so poorly trained they are not much better than a roaming gang of thugs.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically all the money the government has collected as fines and penalties is distributed evenly to all taxpayers. That money was collected as compensation for crimes against society, and this way it gets distributed back to society.
Even your seventh-grade Social Studies teacher wouldn't buy that as having any chance of happening. An empiricist would say that you're being farmed for tax money to be distributed to political cronies for favor and power and that this recalibration is a response to simmer
Re: Conflict of interest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People tried that in a few places. They just shortened the yellow until it became impossible to avoid running the red.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your idea of giving the fines to the people, I'd rather see fines eliminated, they unfairly punish lower income people -- $150 fine to a corporate lawyer is pocket change, to a fast food worker it means not being able to pay rent. Replace it with community service. Get caught speeding, do 10 hours community service. Get caught excessive speeding, do 25 hours community service.
This has the bonus of costing the city / county / state money to supervise the community service and they will then direct the
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather see fines eliminated, they unfairly punish lower income people -- $150 fine to a corporate lawyer is pocket change
The point of fines is to be a painful deterrent---just not as painful as jail time.
We should do what some European countries have done, which is to scale the fines based on income.
E.g., Finland has a formula to estimate how much the offender has for a a day's worth of spending money, and fines are based on that amount. There are multipliers based on the severity of the offense.
It sounds strange to hear about a $100K speeding ticket for a CEO, but do you expect a multi-millionaire or billionaire to notice an
Re: Conflict of interest (Score:3)
"Lose" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate when people use the word "lose" to mean "not anymore have the opportunity to gain as additional income (under certain additional conditions)".
As in "lost my job"? I think you're on the losing side there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Lose" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more accurate to say that the citizens of Chicago get to keep $17 million of their money that is annually stolen from them by the city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Save $100 on a new TV during our Spring Sale!"
... you can't afford not to buy it!
Re: (Score:2)
"Save $100 on a new TV during our Spring Sale!"
The more you spend, the more you save!
Stupid (Score:2)
Why change the red light grace period? Red light is red light.
If you want to reduce accidents, increase the yellow period. People who push the limits of an extended yellow don't deserve grace. All this is going to do is now make people more comfortable running a little bit of red.
Re: (Score:3)
All this is going to do is now make people more comfortable running a little bit of red.
Right. People will adapt, and that's why it's unclear if there's going to be a change in revenue at all.
Re: (Score:3)
It is easy to lose sight of what the actual goal is here: to reduce the number of accidents. Fines or other punishment can have an effect, but only if it motivates drivers to drive more considerately. Something that is used in UK is the idea of adding penalty points to people's license - when you reach 12 points, you generally lose your license, and it does seem to work to some degree, altough there are those who don't care. For them there is the option of banning them from driving, after which you may go t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why change the red light grace period? Red light is red light.
If you want to reduce accidents, increase the yellow period. People who push the limits of an extended yellow don't deserve grace. All this is going to do is now make people more comfortable running a little bit of red.
From the summary: "following recommendations part of a recent study of its red-light cameras. " https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org]
or, short version here: https://www.cityofchicago.org/... [cityofchicago.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that cell phones are like "open containers" in a car. If one is visible, go to jail. It goes in the trunk, and to use the damn thing, get out of the damn car.
Then what should children in the back seat use instead for entertainment on a road trip exceeding an hour?
Re: (Score:2)
Why change the red light grace period? Red light is red light.
Because red lights means get out of the intersection. The grace period should be a hell of a lot longer or the automatic ticketing should just be abolished.
Re: (Score:2)
The grace period is already fine. A red light means do not enter the intersection. (If you are already in the intersection, then yes, you should get out as quickly as reasonably possible.) A red light camera should only be triggered when a vehicle crosses the stop line after the light has turned red - that is the definition of "running a red light."
The amber light is a signal that the light will soon be changing to red. When the light goes amber you are supposed to stop if reasonably possible. If it is not
right on red issues as well! (Score:2)
right on red issues as well!
There was a place where they removed the camera after lot's of people where stopping after the line as they need to stop after the line to be able to see if they can make a safe right on red.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
No, he's actually right.
Red means "do not enter intesection. If you are in the intersection, exit as quickly and safely as possible".
Re: (Score:3)
This varies by country.
Yellow means "Stop if safe to do so" in many places.
Red means "Do not enter".
If you think about it, it also doesn't make any sense that Red means get out of the intersection as anyone in the intersection would not see the red light in many countries due to layout. e.g. In most of Europe (UK excluded) the lights are at the entrance to the intersection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why change the red light grace period? Red light is red light.
If you want to reduce accidents, increase the yellow period. People who push the limits of an extended yellow don't deserve grace. All this is going to do is now make people more comfortable running a little bit of red.
When the end result is a net loss to revenue, perhaps we should look to understand why a change to a program centered around safety came about, if this is still about safety and reducing accidents.
To validate my latter claim, I'd like to see the aggregate safety statistics since red-light camera inception. When main statistic that is peddled first is revenue, it tends to question the intent of the entire damn program. If this is truly about saving lives and preventing accidents, then prove it.
And no, a r
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The whole purpose of "yellow light" is that it's a grace period.
Unless... how short are the yellow lights in Chicago? Maybe they should be longer.
Re: (Score:2)
The yellow light is a grace period but the driver population is divided as to whether it means "you've got three seconds to stop before hitting red" of "you've got three seconds to accelerate before hitting red".
Re: (Score:2)
So you want people slamming on their brakes the instant they see yellow? Because that is what the lack of a grace period will result in. You can't know if a light is going to be extended yellow or not.
And, if anything, drives will assume they are not since most cities reduce the yellows to get more fines.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true if cities weren't in the habit of shortening the yellow at intersections where the cameras are set up. Sometimes so short that even a perfect 0 reaction time and the best brakes available aren't good enough to avoid running the red.
Or 17 million goes back to the local economy (Score:3)
since that money stays with the drivers. Just like Media companies claiming billions lost from file sharing when in reality that money was spent on different market sectors and the gov probably made more off corporate taxes since small businesses can't get the same tax loopholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but isn't it always better when the government is the one making the decisions on where to redistribute that money? Since they, in their infinite wisdom, always know best?
That's stupid. (Score:2)
Leave the cases within the grace period to actual cops who n
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on how you arrange the lights. In the UK, there's a delay in between one set of lights going red and the next going green. In a number of US cities that I've visited, one set turns green at precisely the same instant that the other turns red. This means that going through the lights as they turn red is potentially very dangerous, because you will still be crossing the intersection while cars from other directions go. Adding a small delay, larger than the grace period, would likely improve saf
Re: (Score:3)
I mostly see lights with a delay where all are red very briefly, but it could be where I have lived in the US. What annoys me is that even with that there are often people entering the intersection when the other traffic's light turns green.
I believe we should get much tougher with driving tests in the US. One thing I would add for states which get a lot of snow is some sort of testing in the ability to handle it. I'm not sure how to practically do this year round though - simulated snow course?
I've nev
Re: (Score:2)
Then make the yellow phase longer. Braking at normal traffic speeds within the time the yellow phase offers you means slamming the brakes with maximum force, ensuring a lot of rear-ending near traffic lights.
Re: (Score:2)
Then make the yellow phase longer.
You are not allowed to cross a yellow light here, unless as you say it would mean slamming your brakes, running a red light ALWAYS means a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
So your yellow phase is about 3-4 seconds long? Because anything shorter isn't going to allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your yellow phase is about 3-4 seconds long? Because anything shorter isn't going to allow it.
Dunno where that guy lives but in the UK you get enough time to cross on yellow if you can't reasonably stop.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, the amber phase has to be made long enough to accomodate the worst reaction time legally allowed and the worst deceleration legally allowed, and the highest speed legally allowed on this stretch of the road.
At least in the US, the duration of the amber period is fairly arbitrary, though. Which is where much of the discussion about red light cameras stems from. If there were fixed minimum durations (at least 3 seconds, 5 seconds if the speed limit is hi
A way better solution (Score:5, Informative)
The maybe best solution ever I've seen in Austria. Here [youtube.com] is a quick comparison between US vs. Austrian traffic lights.
Basically, their lights flash green 5 times before they go to yellow, giving you ample time to know that the green period ends. Also, before switching to green, it shows red and yellow for about a second or two to give you an idea that you should put your car into gear and prepare to accelerate, thus improving the reaction time of people and improving the usage of the green phase.
All in all, a WAY better solution. Of course their law also says that there is ZERO grace period for entering with a red light. You have ample time to know it's going red. Actually, I don't even know whether there isn't already some kind of provision that you're supposed to not enter when it goes yellow.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use the orange light and red light as intended? Orange means stop unless you need to break hard, and early red means get out of the intersection if you are still there. This idiocy about automatic tickets on red is the entire problem. It is like they don't understand hard traffic lights are supposed to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah we need warnings for our warning warnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
In the UK, red means DO NOT CROSS the line of the traffic light. If you're already past the line by the time it goes red, you're on your own (e.g. traffic jam in front but no yellow box forcing you to keep the junction clear and nothing moves for a whole phase) but it's not an offence.
It's quite simple, with our rules. Yellow means "It's about to go red". Red means "You CANNOT cross that line" (and the line is physical - drawn on the ground).
If you cross the line on red, you've broke the law, whet
Re:A way better solution (Score:5, Insightful)
So long as the yellow phase is a legally-safe period of time to come to a safe and controlled halt from the maximum speed of the road, everything else is moot.
This is part of the problem in the US, once red light cameras are installed, municipalities often shorten the length of the yellow light to increase their income.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. It is well documented Chicago shaved the yellow light times to increase red light violations.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
[In Britain,] If you cross the line on red, you've broke the law, whether it was red for 0.1 seconds or 10 years (note: you can't even cross it if an emergency vehicle appears behind and you need to cross it to let them pass... it's AGAINST THE LAW to cross the line once the light is red).
How is a motorist stopped at such an unresponsive signal expected to recover the use of his or her vehicle?
Re: (Score:2)
The maybe best solution ever I've seen in Austria. their lights flash green 5 times before they go to yellow
So what's the purpose of the yellow light in this case?? When green switches to yellow you're supposed to stop if distance and speed allow, and pass otherwise. If the time allotted to yellow is to low, increase it!
Re: (Score:2)
The maybe best solution ever I've seen in Austria
Another solution, in Japan: the traffic light may switch to red but cars keep going for 2-3 seconds.
Re:A way better solution (Score:5, Funny)
That's similar to the Greek solution: The traffic light is mostly seen as a suggestion or guideline, and whoever honks the loudest moves first.
count down timers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, their lights flash green 5 times before they go to yellow, giving you ample time to know that the green period ends.
A pre-yellow warning phase also causes motorists to increase speed inappropriately, which is why the United States has not adopted a pre-yellow vehicular phase [dot.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
You must have been in the wrong Austria. 99.99% of the population make running a red a contest there too.
I always knew (Score:2)
...that if I pass that white line before it turns red, really REALLY fast itll be OK.
Sad (Score:2)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL (Score:2)
"Well intentioned"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A red light grace period is the wrong answer (Score:2)
Yellow light does not mean speed up so you don't get stuck at a red light. Yellow light is an instruction to come to a steady stop before the intersection if speed and distance allow. This requires a light to be yellow for the ap
Why wasn't MY spin selected for headline (Score:2)
Chicago has reason to rejoice, as it was found that by trimming the red light duration from 1.7 to 1.3 seconds it will lose only 17 million and not $29M as originally estimated.
Camera shutters will not be altered in any way, saving even more of the city's budget on any unnecessary upgrades.
I've seen them game the system with the amber (Score:3)
still bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Problem is, the way traffic flows in chicago, left turning motorists often are in the middle of the street when the light changes, and can only complete their turn once the light has turned red and the ticket has been issued.
Self driving cars (Score:2)
I can't wait until self-driving cars become the norm and totally screw these local governments out of these sources of "revenue".
Chicago citizens to retain $17M (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or unless the intersection is so large that a cyclist can enter on green and the signal can go from green to yellow to red before the cyclist has cleared it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is always a specific point where there is indecision about whether to stop or keep going when the light turns yellow.
- Stopping means hitting the brakes hard, possibly causing an accident due to someone rear-ending you.
- Proceeding means you might shave a bit of the red.
Shaving a bit of the red is generally not going to cause an accident because it takes time for cars to accelerate and get going. There is also a dead-time between one direction turning red and the other turning green. However, as someo
Re:40.000 deaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody died because someone crossed the intersection 0.3 seconds after it turned red. The other light isn't even green yet. Your statement implies a correlation between traffic enforcement and road safety, but this correlation is frighteningly weak. Unfortunately, enforcement is concentrated on things that are easy to measure instead of things that are most dangerous.
Red light cameras are a great example of ineffective enforcement. Red light running generally falls into two categories: people that push the boundary and people that make mistakes (not paying attention, drunk, didn't clean windshield, etc.). Cameras can make people choose not to push the boundary, but they are very bad at correcting the latter behavior. So, they shift a lot of money to the government and the camera operating company, without having much of an effect on safety.
You can tell a government is serious about safety when they start redesigning bad intersections instead of wagging their fingers at people driving 36 in a 35 or going through intersections one second after the light turns red. Research has shown time and time again that if there is a trend of people running the beginning of a particular red light, the best solution is to make the yellow longer. Often blatant red light violations come from intersections with no left turn arrow. Frustrated drivers wait an entire light cycle (or four), and then finally just go when the opposite lane clears as the light turns red. Once again, the correct solution is to change the intersection. Yelling at (or fining) the drivers does nobody any good.
Re: (Score:2)
Often blatant red light violations come from intersections with no left turn arrow. Frustrated drivers wait an entire light cycle (or four), and then finally just go when the opposite lane clears as the light turns red.
If you're referring to intersections that show the left* lane a green disc instead of a green arrow, the proper maneuver is a "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN" as described in the driver's manual. First enter the intersection while the signal is green. Then by the time it turns red, you're already legally in the intersection and have the right and duty to clear it once oncoming traffic to your left ceases.
Or are you referring to left turn lanes whose signal doesn't turn green because its buried induction loop is f
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to intersections that show the left* lane a green disc instead of a green arrow, the proper maneuver is a "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN" as described in the driver's manual. First enter the intersection while the signal is green. Then by the time it turns red, you're already legally in the intersection and have the right and duty to clear it once oncoming traffic to your left ceases.
I am referring to this type of intersection. The maneuver doesn't entirely fix the problem. On my way home from work, I have to turn left off a major street at such an intersection. During the evening rush hour, there is zero chance that there will be a break in the oncoming traffic during the green. The light cycle is about three minutes. So the total volume of traffic that can make this left turn legally is 20 cars per hour. That's not nearly enough.
Re: (Score:2)
They already have laws that enable the police to address Cell phone drivers... they just NEVER enforce it.... It's called "reckless driving".
For Texas:
Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $200;
(2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30 days; or
(3) both the fine and the
Re: (Score:2)
The easy solution is to shorten the yellow light [cbslocal.com], that way we catch everyone in the red.