red light cameras/NY Times

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.

But that takes all the fun out of it. :-(

But that takes all the fun out of it. :-(

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:15:05 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>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.

> SAFETY is my primary concern here, not THROUGHPUT.

So what happens when the slothness of it frustrates some driver into
making a dangerous pass?

> Think about who you're talking to here. Do you really think *I* would
> slow down without a damn good reason?

Hell if I know, seems to me your recommending the same slothy behavior
you say kills

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:15:05 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>>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.

> SAFETY is my primary concern here, not THROUGHPUT.

So what happens when the slothness of it frustrates some driver into
making a dangerous pass?

> Think about who you're talking to here. Do you really think *I* would
> slow down without a damn good reason?

Hell if I know, seems to me your recommending the same slothy behavior
you say kills

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:53:18 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>That's like saying slowing down for rain or fog is wrong.

No, it's like saying slowing down for a bright and sunny day is wrong.

>>Why? They pervert people's priorities in exactly the sort of way to
>>cause these collisions.
>
>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 there were cameras in my area, I might be a lot more likely to put on the
anchors for a _yellow_, though, knowing that if I misjudged, I _would_
get ticketed rather than _probably would not_.

>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.

It's IMO more dangerous in the presence of a camera, as over time
drivers on the crossroad will tend to adjust to the short yellow by
being more hesitant on green (and clueless drivers are hesitant already).

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:53:18 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>That's like saying slowing down for rain or fog is wrong.

No, it's like saying slowing down for a bright and sunny day is wrong.

>>Why? They pervert people's priorities in exactly the sort of way to
>>cause these collisions.
>
>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 there were cameras in my area, I might be a lot more likely to put on the
anchors for a _yellow_, though, knowing that if I misjudged, I _would_
get ticketed rather than _probably would not_.

>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.

It's IMO more dangerous in the presence of a camera, as over time
drivers on the crossroad will tend to adjust to the short yellow by
being more hesitant on green (and clueless drivers are hesitant already).

In article >,
says...

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:15:05 -0600,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>>>>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.
>SAFETY is my primary concern here, not THROUGHPUT.

The safest thing, and the one that improves throught put, are not mutually
exclusive. A properly timed yellow will do both things.
------------------
Alex

In article >,
says...

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:15:05 -0600,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>>>>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.
>SAFETY is my primary concern here, not THROUGHPUT.

The safest thing, and the one that improves throught put, are not mutually
exclusive. A properly timed yellow will do both things.
------------------
Alex

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:49:49 -0500, Alex Rodriguez >
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Obviously.
>
>>You can usually get better results by having a traffic engineer review the
>>intersection and then implementing his recommendations.
>
>I saw what it took to get a traffic signal installed at the entrance
>to my previous neighborhood (it had a 4-way stop prior to the
>upgrade). The entire process took more than a year. Imagine going
>through this kind of bureaucratic nightmare for the dozens of
>intersections with incorrectly-set yellow light times?

How much time, and money, is wasted cleaning up after accidents? Just because
it took a year + to get it down in one place does not mean it should take
that long every where else. When safety is really a concern, it can be done
in a lot less time. Places that don't do this are just showing that their
priority is to make money, not improve safety.
----------
Alex