red light cameras/NY Times

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

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
>
> If it's a STALE green,

I guess by 'stale green' you mean a green that has been
green for least 1 second with no queue, or something similar

> and you know the yellow is short as the lady in the article said,

If yellow must be at least as long (in seconds) as 10% of the
posted max speed limit (in MPH), and also you get an extra .14
seconds for the incandescent light lag time.
Otherwise you can get a court to overturn the ticket.

Perhaps the woman was speeding, or unaware of this law.
More likely IMHO, she waited about 1s after the light
went yellow (while making up her mind whether to run it
or brake), and then slammed on the brakes when she
would have made it anyway (you only have to enter the
intersection before it goes red, not exit it).

> and there's a dumbass Trucker tailgating you, that's
> the smartest thing to do.

Well, the trucker's insurance will buy you a new car.

> 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.

I guess you've never been late to pick up your wife from work

> Sloth Kills!
Here you are advocating sloth (ie. slowing down for a green light).

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
>
> If it's a STALE green,

I guess by 'stale green' you mean a green that has been
green for least 1 second with no queue, or something similar

> and you know the yellow is short as the lady in the article said,

If yellow must be at least as long (in seconds) as 10% of the
posted max speed limit (in MPH), and also you get an extra .14
seconds for the incandescent light lag time.
Otherwise you can get a court to overturn the ticket.

Perhaps the woman was speeding, or unaware of this law.
More likely IMHO, she waited about 1s after the light
went yellow (while making up her mind whether to run it
or brake), and then slammed on the brakes when she
would have made it anyway (you only have to enter the
intersection before it goes red, not exit it).

> and there's a dumbass Trucker tailgating you, that's
> the smartest thing to do.

Well, the trucker's insurance will buy you a new car.

> 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.

I guess you've never been late to pick up your wife from work

> Sloth Kills!
Here you are advocating sloth (ie. slowing down for a green light).

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:12:21 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> Seems to me you're being a bit disingenuous just so you can provoke an
> argument.

No. I always go after a person's conflicting arguements. Slowing down for
greens seems a perfect way to kill more people through sloth.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:12:21 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> Seems to me you're being a bit disingenuous just so you can provoke an
> argument.

No. I always go after a person's conflicting arguements. Slowing down for
greens seems a perfect way to kill more people through sloth.

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>> If it's a STALE green,
>
>I guess by 'stale green' you mean a green that has been
>green for least 1 second with no queue, or something similar
>
>> and you know the yellow is short as the lady in the article said,
>
>If yellow must be at least as long (in seconds) as 10% of the
>posted max speed limit (in MPH), and also you get an extra .14
>seconds for the incandescent light lag time.
>Otherwise you can get a court to overturn the ticket.

Where is this law written? I don't think this is applied here in NYC. Yellow
lights are 3 seconds, no more.
----------------
Alex

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>> If it's a STALE green,
>
>I guess by 'stale green' you mean a green that has been
>green for least 1 second with no queue, or something similar
>
>> and you know the yellow is short as the lady in the article said,
>
>If yellow must be at least as long (in seconds) as 10% of the
>posted max speed limit (in MPH), and also you get an extra .14
>seconds for the incandescent light lag time.
>Otherwise you can get a court to overturn the ticket.

Where is this law written? I don't think this is applied here in NYC. Yellow
lights are 3 seconds, no more.
----------------
Alex

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>> Sloth Kills!

>>Here you are advocating sloth (ie. slowing down for a green light).

> Is it Sloth to slow down when another driver pulls out in front of
> you?
>
> Is it Sloth to slow down when the road is slick or visibility is poor?
>
> If you think I'm advocating Sloth, you need to go back to school and
> take Remedial Reading Comprehension 99... And take Brent with you.

Ok, scott. You turn on to a road, or there is a hill or whatever, in any
case a light comes into view and it is green. How do you know if it is a
'stale green' (whatever that undefined term means) or a 'fresh green'?

Traffic around you really isn't a good clue given bad light timings,
drivers who are sloth to accelerate, etc and so forth. The traffic could
appear the same at any portion of the green cycle.

So according to the values you perscribe here, you must slow, because if
you're in doubt you have to assume it is a 'stale green'. So any green
you don't see change from red, must be treated as a 'stale green' and
you have to slow to follow your own advice. And all this needless slowing
in turn causes congestion and traffic jams as intersection throughput
drops.

Of course there was an engineering solution to this many decades ago. The
addition of a _yellow cycle_ This unique invention tells us that a light
will be turning red. We don't have to guess if it is a 'stale green' or
not. The yellow signal will warn us that the green cycle is over while
giving time to stop or proceed through depending on one's proximity to
the intersection and speed.

If we are going to guess when a green is about end and slow just in case
it is about to, we go back to the days before the invention of the yellow
signal. Not only that, it sets up a nasty sloth feedback loop. If you
think the green might be 'stale' slow. But if you slow you're going to
reach the intersection later, when the green signal is even more 'stale'
so you better slow more.... etc and so forth until you're stopped unable
to go forward.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>> Sloth Kills!

>>Here you are advocating sloth (ie. slowing down for a green light).

> Is it Sloth to slow down when another driver pulls out in front of
> you?
>
> Is it Sloth to slow down when the road is slick or visibility is poor?
>
> If you think I'm advocating Sloth, you need to go back to school and
> take Remedial Reading Comprehension 99... And take Brent with you.

Ok, scott. You turn on to a road, or there is a hill or whatever, in any
case a light comes into view and it is green. How do you know if it is a
'stale green' (whatever that undefined term means) or a 'fresh green'?

Traffic around you really isn't a good clue given bad light timings,
drivers who are sloth to accelerate, etc and so forth. The traffic could
appear the same at any portion of the green cycle.

So according to the values you perscribe here, you must slow, because if
you're in doubt you have to assume it is a 'stale green'. So any green
you don't see change from red, must be treated as a 'stale green' and
you have to slow to follow your own advice. And all this needless slowing
in turn causes congestion and traffic jams as intersection throughput
drops.

Of course there was an engineering solution to this many decades ago. The
addition of a _yellow cycle_ This unique invention tells us that a light
will be turning red. We don't have to guess if it is a 'stale green' or
not. The yellow signal will warn us that the green cycle is over while
giving time to stop or proceed through depending on one's proximity to
the intersection and speed.

If we are going to guess when a green is about end and slow just in case
it is about to, we go back to the days before the invention of the yellow
signal. Not only that, it sets up a nasty sloth feedback loop. If you
think the green might be 'stale' slow. But if you slow you're going to
reach the intersection later, when the green signal is even more 'stale'
so you better slow more.... etc and so forth until you're stopped unable
to go forward.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> "Old Wolf" wrote:
>
> >If yellow must be at least as long (in seconds) as 10% of the
> >posted max speed limit (in MPH), and also you get an extra .14
> >seconds for the incandescent light lag time.
> >Otherwise you can get a court to overturn the ticket.
>
> This is the first time I've heard of a yellow light time expressed as
> a formula. Usually there is a standards book which has a big lookup
> table giving recommended yellow light times for various speeds.
>
> Offhand, I would expect the table to be more accurate than the simple
> formula you provided, as the actual relationship between vehicle
> speed, driver reaction time, and stopping distance is not quite so
> linear.

I'm getting my information from http://www.highwayrobbery.net/ .
It is, in fact, table-based as you say (but the tables are
roughly in accordance with the 10% thing, for city speeds).