red light cameras/NY Times

On 10 Jan 2005 20:53:12 -0800,
wrote:

>Too bad it wasn't you that was killed, although it's easily arguable
>that you're brain dead.
>
>How ya doin', loser?


Now, Now, play nice.

:-P

later,

tom @ www.ChopURL.com

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:20:07 -0800, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:
>
>>Because NYT requires you be a subscriber, I'll just post the article.
>
>Bless you!!
>
>>On a perfectly clear day in October, Carla Correa, a confessed neurotic when
>>it comes to getting a ticket, powered her Honda Civic toward an intersection
>>in Baltimore on her way to visit her boyfriend in Washington. When the light
>>turned yellow, she did not simply cruise through, but instead slammed on the
>>brakes.
>>
>>Seconds later, a truck rammed her from behind, and her car was wrecked.
>>
>>Why would she do such a thing? The answer could be found in a box mounted on
>>a nearby post, with a lens pointed at her license plate.
>>
>>"It's an intersection that I've been through a million times before, and I
>>knew that it was a quick yellow light," Ms. Correa, 25, said in a telephone
>>interview. She also knew that the intersection was equipped with a camera.
>>"And when I saw the yellow, I freaked out."
>>
>>Though unhurt, Ms. Correa has made a resolution: from now on, if it seems
>>the light is about to turn red, she is going to run it. "If I hadn't known
>>there was a red-light camera there, I would have gone through," she said.
>>"Every time I see the red-light camera, I'm terrified by it. It's a $70
>>ticket." (Actually, it's $75.)
>
>What a bimbo.
>
>How about you SLOW DOWN a little for a stale green, so that you don't
>have to SLAM on the brakes if the light turns yellow?

Slow down for a green light? That's just wrong. What she should have
done is have enough situational awareness to realize there was a truck
behind her that likely couldn't stop as quickly as she could. Then
gone through the yellow, camera or no camera. Skin, tin, ticket. But
what the story demonstrates is that there ain't no justice; she
shouldn't have been required to choose between tin and ticket.

>I hate red light cameras as much as the next person, but trying to
>blame them for these sorts of collisions is just wrong.

Why? They pervert people's priorities in exactly the sort of way to
cause these collisions.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:20:07 -0800, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:
>
>>Because NYT requires you be a subscriber, I'll just post the article.
>
>Bless you!!
>
>>On a perfectly clear day in October, Carla Correa, a confessed neurotic when
>>it comes to getting a ticket, powered her Honda Civic toward an intersection
>>in Baltimore on her way to visit her boyfriend in Washington. When the light
>>turned yellow, she did not simply cruise through, but instead slammed on the
>>brakes.
>>
>>Seconds later, a truck rammed her from behind, and her car was wrecked.
>>
>>Why would she do such a thing? The answer could be found in a box mounted on
>>a nearby post, with a lens pointed at her license plate.
>>
>>"It's an intersection that I've been through a million times before, and I
>>knew that it was a quick yellow light," Ms. Correa, 25, said in a telephone
>>interview. She also knew that the intersection was equipped with a camera.
>>"And when I saw the yellow, I freaked out."
>>
>>Though unhurt, Ms. Correa has made a resolution: from now on, if it seems
>>the light is about to turn red, she is going to run it. "If I hadn't known
>>there was a red-light camera there, I would have gone through," she said.
>>"Every time I see the red-light camera, I'm terrified by it. It's a $70
>>ticket." (Actually, it's $75.)
>
>What a bimbo.
>
>How about you SLOW DOWN a little for a stale green, so that you don't
>have to SLAM on the brakes if the light turns yellow?

Slow down for a green light? That's just wrong. What she should have
done is have enough situational awareness to realize there was a truck
behind her that likely couldn't stop as quickly as she could. Then
gone through the yellow, camera or no camera. Skin, tin, ticket. But
what the story demonstrates is that there ain't no justice; she
shouldn't have been required to choose between tin and ticket.

>I hate red light cameras as much as the next person, but trying to
>blame them for these sorts of collisions is just wrong.

Why? They pervert people's priorities in exactly the sort of way to
cause these collisions.

In article >,
says...

>What a bimbo.
>How about you SLOW DOWN a little for a stale green, so that you don't
>have to SLAM on the brakes if the light turns yellow?

This would not be necessary if the timing on the yellow was properly set.
It would also improve the flow of traffic.

>I hate red light cameras as much as the next person, but trying to
>blame them for these sorts of collisions is just wrong. The people to
>blame are this stupid bimbo and the dumbass Trucker who was tailgating
>her.

They are to blame because they are not a real solution to the problem.
They are being used simplyl to raise revenue.

>>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which
>>endorses the camera systems' use, 1,000 people are killed each year in
>>red-light violations. Advocates of the cameras have championed them as
>>effective tools in reducing accidents and deaths, freeing officers to
>>perform other crime-fighting duties
>
>You mean like running radar guns and sobriety checkpoints?

Like taking down accident reports that occur at the red light camera
intersections.

>>Studies elsewhere, however, made a striking finding: rear-end accidents have
>>shot up at intersections with cameras. In 2002 a consultant's study in San
>>Diego reported that the number of crashes at camera intersections had
>>increased by 3 percent after the cameras were installed, almost all of it a
>>result of a 37 percent increase in rear-endings. "This finding is not
>>consistent with the program's overall objective of improving traffic
>>safety," the report's authors concluded.
>
>Give it time. IIRC, the studies also showed that drver behavior did
>not change immediately once the cameras were installed; initially the
>violation rate was very high. As time passed, and drivers learned to
>anticipate the presence of the cameras, the violaiton rates went down.
>It may also take time for drivers to anticipate panic stops from
>incompetent drivers, but eventually they will.

You can usually get better results by having a traffic engineer review the
intersection and then implementing his recommendations.
-------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>What a bimbo.
>How about you SLOW DOWN a little for a stale green, so that you don't
>have to SLAM on the brakes if the light turns yellow?

This would not be necessary if the timing on the yellow was properly set.
It would also improve the flow of traffic.

>I hate red light cameras as much as the next person, but trying to
>blame them for these sorts of collisions is just wrong. The people to
>blame are this stupid bimbo and the dumbass Trucker who was tailgating
>her.

They are to blame because they are not a real solution to the problem.
They are being used simplyl to raise revenue.

>>According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which
>>endorses the camera systems' use, 1,000 people are killed each year in
>>red-light violations. Advocates of the cameras have championed them as
>>effective tools in reducing accidents and deaths, freeing officers to
>>perform other crime-fighting duties
>
>You mean like running radar guns and sobriety checkpoints?

Like taking down accident reports that occur at the red light camera
intersections.

>>Studies elsewhere, however, made a striking finding: rear-end accidents have
>>shot up at intersections with cameras. In 2002 a consultant's study in San
>>Diego reported that the number of crashes at camera intersections had
>>increased by 3 percent after the cameras were installed, almost all of it a
>>result of a 37 percent increase in rear-endings. "This finding is not
>>consistent with the program's overall objective of improving traffic
>>safety," the report's authors concluded.
>
>Give it time. IIRC, the studies also showed that drver behavior did
>not change immediately once the cameras were installed; initially the
>violation rate was very high. As time passed, and drivers learned to
>anticipate the presence of the cameras, the violaiton rates went down.
>It may also take time for drivers to anticipate panic stops from
>incompetent drivers, but eventually they will.

You can usually get better results by having a traffic engineer review the
intersection and then implementing his recommendations.
-------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>That's like saying slowing down for rain or fog is wrong.

No, it isn't.

>If it's a STALE green, and you know the yellow is short as the lady in
>the article said, and there's a dumbass Trucker tailgating you, that's
>the smartest thing to do. It's called adjusting your speed according
>to conditions.

How long is the green light? By your logic right after the light goes from
red to green, you need to slow down. That is not the way to keep traffic
flowing smoothly. Yellow lights need to be timed properly so they account
for the speed of traffic on the road.

>Red light cameras haven't changed my priorities one whit. I stopped
>for red lights before cameras, and I still stop for red lights now. If
>you're driving correctly in the first place, the presence or absence
>of the camera makes absolutely no difference. Similarly, a too-short
>yellow is dangerous, again whether there is a camera installed or not.

That's the problem. At intersections where some think a camera is the
solution would be better served by adjusting the timing of the yellow.
There is a reason why certain intersections have hiring numbers of red
light runners. You need to identify the reason and address that reason.

>I don't avoid running red lights because I'm afraid of getting a
>ticket; I avoid running red lights because I'm afraid of getting
>T-BONED.

You and the overwhelming majority of drivers feel this way. That is
why cameras are stupid and not the solution to the problem.

>The presence or absence of a camera has nothing whatsoever to
>do with it.

In the rare instances where the yellow light timing has been adjusted
down to get more revenue out of the camera, it will affect you.
------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>That's like saying slowing down for rain or fog is wrong.

No, it isn't.

>If it's a STALE green, and you know the yellow is short as the lady in
>the article said, and there's a dumbass Trucker tailgating you, that's
>the smartest thing to do. It's called adjusting your speed according
>to conditions.

How long is the green light? By your logic right after the light goes from
red to green, you need to slow down. That is not the way to keep traffic
flowing smoothly. Yellow lights need to be timed properly so they account
for the speed of traffic on the road.

>Red light cameras haven't changed my priorities one whit. I stopped
>for red lights before cameras, and I still stop for red lights now. If
>you're driving correctly in the first place, the presence or absence
>of the camera makes absolutely no difference. Similarly, a too-short
>yellow is dangerous, again whether there is a camera installed or not.

That's the problem. At intersections where some think a camera is the
solution would be better served by adjusting the timing of the yellow.
There is a reason why certain intersections have hiring numbers of red
light runners. You need to identify the reason and address that reason.

>I don't avoid running red lights because I'm afraid of getting a
>ticket; I avoid running red lights because I'm afraid of getting
>T-BONED.

You and the overwhelming majority of drivers feel this way. That is
why cameras are stupid and not the solution to the problem.

>The presence or absence of a camera has nothing whatsoever to
>do with it.

In the rare instances where the yellow light timing has been adjusted
down to get more revenue out of the camera, it will affect you.
------------
Alex

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>Slow down for a green light? That's just wrong.
>
> That's like saying slowing down for rain or fog is wrong.
>
> If it's a STALE green, and you know the yellow is short as the lady in
> the article said, and there's a dumbass Trucker tailgating you, that's
> the smartest thing to do. It's called adjusting your speed according
> to conditions.

'slow for a stale green'. This would fit in well with the rural 1930s
environment that dominates general driving tips in the USA but it's a
disaster for the road system in well populated areas. What defines a
'stale green'? For some this will be a second after it turned green.
Slowing traffic on the green signal will greatly reduce the throughput of
an intersection leading to congestion.

The point of a yellow signal is to warn that it will be red. If we are
going to implement ideas like 'slowing for a stale green' so one can stop
on yellow, the yellow signal becomes irrelevant, useless, and redundant.
It might as well be a green and a red.

The correct thing to do is set the yellow signal length properly instead of
shortening it to generate revenue.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>Slow down for a green light? That's just wrong.
>
> That's like saying slowing down for rain or fog is wrong.
>
> If it's a STALE green, and you know the yellow is short as the lady in
> the article said, and there's a dumbass Trucker tailgating you, that's
> the smartest thing to do. It's called adjusting your speed according
> to conditions.

'slow for a stale green'. This would fit in well with the rural 1930s
environment that dominates general driving tips in the USA but it's a
disaster for the road system in well populated areas. What defines a
'stale green'? For some this will be a second after it turned green.
Slowing traffic on the green signal will greatly reduce the throughput of
an intersection leading to congestion.

The point of a yellow signal is to warn that it will be red. If we are
going to implement ideas like 'slowing for a stale green' so one can stop
on yellow, the yellow signal becomes irrelevant, useless, and redundant.
It might as well be a green and a red.

The correct thing to do is set the yellow signal length properly instead of
shortening it to generate revenue.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:35:38 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>What defines a
>>'stale green'? For some this will be a second after it turned green.
>
> Anyone that stupid is going to be a road hazard no matter what they
> do.

You're the one talking about slowing when the green is going to turn red.
Well, it's going to turn red so long as it is green.

>>Slowing traffic on the green signal will greatly reduce the throughput of
>>an intersection leading to congestion.

> Only if done stupidly.

SLOWING lowers throughput regardless of how it's done. In those last 5
seconds of green signal, since you won't define 'stale green' will allow
fewer vehicles to clear the intersection at 20mph than at 30mph. It's
simple math. There is no way you are going to get more cars through at
the lower speed in the same time.

>>The point of a yellow signal is to warn that it will be red. If we are
>>going to implement ideas like 'slowing for a stale green' so one can stop
>>on yellow, the yellow signal becomes irrelevant, useless, and redundant.
>>It might as well be a green and a red.

> I agree that the proper solution is to fix the yellow light time. But
> you and I cannot fix it ourselves, so what should we do? Bend over and
> take the unwarranted red light tickets? Stop driving? Slam on the
> brakes and get rear-ended?

Don't forget waste more time in congestion and traffic jams.

> I look forward to hearing your solution.

Hold government responsible. Try to educate the moron masses so they
understand. Impossible, maybe. But it's the only real solution.