Some Drivers Don't Need a Red Light Camera

On 23 Jun 2005 19:56:09 -0700, "Old Wolf" >
wrote:

>In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
>light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.

Which, of course, is not the case when there is a pickup truck
tailgating you. Not that Miss Clown Car Driver knew that, of course...

On 23 Jun 2005 07:17:29 -0700, "Larry Bud" >
wrote:

>
>
>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> > The repeatedly-made claim is that installing Red Light Cameras at an
>> > intersection causes an increase in rear-end collisions. Some people
>> > don't need RLCs - they're clearly adept at doing it all by themselves.
>> >
>>
>> Hey stupid. You shouldn't be tailgating. What if the person in front of
>> you has to make a panic stop because some idiot wanders in the path of
>> their car.
>
>If that idiot is use, I'm hitting the ****ing gas pedal.

you from NJ?

>>The law is that you must ENTER the intersection before the
>>light goes red. There is no law that you must leave it before the
>>light goes red.

It's the proverbial slippery slope, though. At the bottom of said
slopeis a habit of red-light running. Aside from the basic rudeness of
it (a lot of drivers were home sick from kindergarten the day they went
over "waiting your turn"), sooner or later it's going to get you a big
ticket... or a pedestrian splayed across your hood, or a T-bone with
somebody who was a bit too incautious and aggressive with *his* green
light.

What I was taught was that intersections are where things happen, and
light transitions are when they are most likely to happen, and that's
why habits such as running pink lights and speeding up on the yellow
to make the light are bad ideas.


Again, I freely concede that apparently distracted and inattentive SUV
driver was not doing a very good job. California's law says that you
stop for the yellow light "when safe." If the result had been an
accident rather than a near-miss, this might have resulted in an
exception to the usual rule of thumb that the guy behind is gonna get
blamed in a rear-ender.

However, without someone like the original poster to serve as a
witness, he might have been caught in a "his word against her word"
situation... and it still would have all come down to a series of
judgement calls by overworked and sometimes all too human officials.

The SUV driver might also have made a compelling argument that she
didn't even see anyone behind her, depending on the relative sizes of
the vehicles and how closely he was tailgating. Many's the time I've
been tailgated so insanely that I wondered if the guy was trying to
hook his bumper over my trailer hitch to save gas.

And I say again that if the driver ahead thinks the light is too dark a
shade of yellow to enter the intersection, the driver behind isn't
likely to find that it has gotten any greener by the time he gets
there. (Never mind the possibility that the driver ahead saw something
that the driver behind didn't see and perhaps couldn't have seen, in
addition to the state of the traffic signal, which influenced the
decision to stop. )


>There's "Anti-Gridlock" laws in some places, though.

In the San Francisco area, some substantial number of signal-controlled
intersections very near a busy entrance or exit ramp have been painted
with white crosshatching and equipped with signs reading, "Don't Block
The Box" and a threat of, as I recall, a $271 fine. The idea is
that you shouldn't plunge into the intersection without reasonable hope
that there would be somewhere to go on the other side. Enforcement and
compliance are both sporadic.

In the mid-80s, I worked in a building that overlooked such an
intersection, very near an often-clogged approach to the Bay Bridge.
For those of us who walked or rode to the office, it was fun in an
instructive and horrifying sort of way to stand at the window after our
Friday-evening company-sponsored attitude adjustment and watch this
unfold.

In the early parts of the commute, motor cops would sit nearby,
occasionally whipping out their ticket books to convince someone that,
yes, the fine print on the sign read "this means you." Once in a
great while a cop would stand in the middle of the intersection and
actually direct traffic, but I guess ticketing was more, well,
lucrative.

Their watch ended at 6 p.m., and by about, oh, 6:03 (enough time for a
change or two of the light), especially in bad weather or a getaway
weekend, it was more like watching one of those nature shows about
baboons. Once in a great while we even observed not a mere clogged
intersection but genuine gridlock -- the tragedy of the commons
unfolding in such a geometry that most people could not maneuver even
out of benighted self-interest.

Naturally the result was that people who had no intention of getting
onto the bridge, but just wanted to go about their business on the
surface streets, were pretty much hosed.

Those among us who had to get out of the parking lot and onto the
bridge (or, on a bad night, even *through* this bumper-to-bumper morass
of petty inhumanity) didn't find it amusing at all, of course. It was
not at all uncommon to hit the leftover pizza or Chinese takeout in the
break room and just go back to work until it all finally cleared up and
calmed down.

--Joe

In article . com>,
says...

>In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
>light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.

Where? The yellow light means that the red light will soon be coming on.
Nothing more.
----------------
Alex

Around 6/24/2005 11:09 AM, Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> In article . com>,
> says...
>
>
>>In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
>>light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.
>
>
> Where?

Most of Canada, I think; BC I know for sure. Maybe a couple states, too.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> Around 6/24/2005 11:09 AM, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> In article . com>,
>> says...
>>
>>
>>>In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
>>>light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.
>>
>>
>> Where?
>
> Most of Canada, I think; BC I know for sure. Maybe a couple states, too.

Oregon is one.

Bottom line: SUV driver can yap all she wants, as long as she's paying
attention to the road, the other drivers, driving conditions, etc. And
pickup driver should not be following so close. If I'm not very much
mistaken, the law says if you rear-end the car ahead of you then you were
following too close regardless of conditions.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:27:59 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>Bottom line: SUV driver can yap all she wants, as long as she's paying
>>attention to the road, the other drivers, driving conditions, etc. And
>>pickup driver should not be following so close. If I'm not very much
>>mistaken, the law says if you rear-end the car ahead of you then you were
>>following too close regardless of conditions.
>
> Does she have a right to slam on her brakes? I suppose. Does that make
> it a smart thing to do? Hardly.
>
> She also has a right to pull into a 7-Eleven and leave her keys in her
> car and her engine running while she runs inside for a Slurpee. That
> doesn't mean she SHOULD.

Everything you say is as right as rain, Scott. My comments were directed
toward liability only, not sensibility.

In article . net>,
says...
>
>
>"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
>> Around 6/24/2005 11:09 AM, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> In article . com>,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
>>>>light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> Most of Canada, I think; BC I know for sure. Maybe a couple states, too.
>
>Oregon is one.

Exactly what does the law say?
-----------------
Alex

Around 6/27/2005 1:56 PM, Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> In article . net>,
> says...
>
>>>>In article . com>,
says...
>>>>
>>>>>In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
>>>>>light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.
>>
>>Oregon is one.
>
>
> Exactly what does the law say?


Found Oregon's. From <http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/811.html>:

811.260 Appropriate driver responses to traffic control devices.
This section establishes appropriate driver responses to
specific traffic control devices for purposes of ORS 811.265.
Authority to place traffic control devices is established under
ORS 810.210. Except when acting under the direction of a police
officer that contradicts this section, a driver is in violation
of ORS 811.265 if the driver makes a response to traffic control
devices that is not permitted under the following:
<snip greens>

(3) Steady circular yellow signal. A driver facing a steady
circular yellow signal light is thereby warned that the related
right of way is being terminated and that a red or flashing red
light will be shown immediately. A driver facing the light shall
stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, shall stop
before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the
intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before
entering the intersection. If a driver cannot stop in safety,
the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.



--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Garth Almgren wrote:

> >>>>> In some areas, there is also a law that you must stop if the
> >>>>> light is yellow, and it is possible to stop safely.

> > Exactly what does the law say?
>
> Found Oregon's. From <http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/811.html>:

> (3) Steady circular yellow signal. A driver facing a steady
> circular yellow signal light is thereby warned that the related
> right of way is being terminated and that a red or flashing red
> light will be shown immediately. A driver facing the light shall
> stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, shall stop
> before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the
> intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before
> entering the intersection. If a driver cannot stop in safety,
> the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.

Its verbosity aside, that is similar to the equivalent rule in the
UK's Highway Code:

"AMBER means 'Stop' at the stopline. You may go on only if
the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or
are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"