Red Light Cameras: O.C. Results Blurry

What they don't tell you is the large increase of rear end collisions.
These cameras are about the greed of local pols and their anal need to
control the lives and destinies of others.

On 2 Jun 2005 07:56:00 -0700, "dr.benway" >
wrote:

> What they don't tell you is the large increase of rear end collisions.

Probably because there hasn't been an increase.

The article said accidents had decreased, although they don't know if
that's a result of the cameras or not.

>These cameras are about the greed of local pols and their anal need to
>control the lives and destinies of others.

bull****

L Sternn > wrote in
:

> On 2 Jun 2005 07:56:00 -0700, "dr.benway" >
> wrote:
>
>> What they don't tell you is the large increase of rear end collisions.
>
> Probably because there hasn't been an increase.
>
> The article said accidents had decreased, although they don't know if
> that's a result of the cameras or not.
>
>>These cameras are about the greed of local pols and their anal need to
>>control the lives and destinies of others.
>
> bull****
>

For there to be an increase in rear-end collisions due to RLC's,people have
to be aware that RLCs are being used(or tested).

People generally are not that up-to-date on such things.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:

> For there to be an increase in rear-end collisions due to RLC's,people
> have to be aware that RLCs are being used(or tested). People generally
> are not that up-to-date on such things.

Gee, Jim, I've driven in lots of different provinces and states where RLCs
are being used or tested. In each case, there's been a large and
conspicuous sign warning that red lights at the intersection ahead are
photo-enforced.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > For there to be an increase in rear-end collisions due to RLC's,people
> > have to be aware that RLCs are being used(or tested). People generally
> > are not that up-to-date on such things.
>
> Gee, Jim, I've driven in lots of different provinces and states where RLCs
> are being used or tested. In each case, there's been a large and
> conspicuous sign warning that red lights at the intersection ahead are
> photo-enforced.

In most cases, there are even two signs:

* one sign at each corner of the intersection indicating "Photo Enforced"
* one sign mounted to each traffic signal pole on all sides of the
intersection

and of course, the cameras themselves are also quite visible.

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:15:32 -0700, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> wrote:

>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
in.umich.edu...
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>> > For there to be an increase in rear-end collisions due to RLC's,people
>> > have to be aware that RLCs are being used(or tested). People generally
>> > are not that up-to-date on such things.
>>
>> Gee, Jim, I've driven in lots of different provinces and states where RLCs
>> are being used or tested. In each case, there's been a large and
>> conspicuous sign warning that red lights at the intersection ahead are
>> photo-enforced.
>
>In most cases, there are even two signs:
>
>* one sign at each corner of the intersection indicating "Photo Enforced"
>* one sign mounted to each traffic signal pole on all sides of the
>intersection
>
>and of course, the cameras themselves are also quite visible.
>

I haven't seen too many, but all of the ones I have seen were clearly
marked.

The camera was also quite visible, but I did have to look for it.

While it does sound like there are problems with current
implementations of them (if you can believe the anti-RLC crowd), I'm
all for strict enforcement of laws surrounding red lights and their
conclusion is always that RLCs are bad, no matter how they're
implemented.

I believe that these people simply are afraid of getting tickets
because they run red lights.

Running red lights kills, unlike speed.

I understand how they feel because I find myself tempted to make the
same arguments against speed cameras, which I am against, but I really
have no good argument against them.

A little speeding doesn't hurt anyone really won't hold up in court
and like most people, I speed.

Anyway, it looks like we're all screwed. Cameras are coming and there
appears to be no stopping them.

The bill would have banned photo-radar enforcement in Arizona, but
would have granted an exemption to Scottsdale, which is already using
it.


http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/396.asp

Setbacks for AZ, TX Camera Bans

<snip>

In the Arizona state legislature, SB 1164 (bill text) would ban the
use of photo radar on freeways. In March, the bill passed the Senate
18-12, but the bill failed a second and likely final vote on
reconsideration in the House. Although it consistently obtained a
plurality of 29 votes in its favor, Arizona House rules require 31
votes for passage. The votes were 29-26 on April 28, 29-28 on May 3.
With passage of the bill unlikely, the city of Scottsdale is moving
forward with its photo radar plans. It would join Illinois as the only
states using the technology on major freeways.

L Sternn wrote:

> I believe that these people simply are afraid of getting tickets
> because they run red lights.

Your belief is completely off the mark.

> Running red lights kills, unlike speed.

Only in cases where someone runs the red well after the light changed.
If yellow light interval times were consistent with actual traffic
speeds and typical driver reaction times and braking distances, then it
becomes much easier to determine whether one can make it through the light.

If someone is worried about running a red light when they see a "stale"
green light ahead, then there's something wrong with the traffic light.

> I understand how they feel because I find myself tempted to make the
> same arguments against speed cameras, which I am against, but I really
> have no good argument against them.

It's quite easy to find many good arguments against them. For instance,
there are several examples of interstate speed limit reductions in some
of the larger cities in TX. IIRC, the limits were reduced from 70 to 55
mph. This was because the air quality around those areas didn't meet
EPA standards. Of course, it should be noted that EPA models were not
accurately determining the primary cause of pollution. For instance,
overall NOx emissions are really no different whether traffic is going
70 vs 55 mph. Second, pollution could be coming from other areas
besides traffic.

In any case, it's clear that those speed limit reductions had nothing to
do with safety. If speed cameras were installed and used for speed
enforcement on those highways, are you still going to say that you don't
have a good argument against them?

> A little speeding doesn't hurt anyone really won't hold up in court

It depends. In areas where speed limits are "prima facie," that
argument could be used in court. But the source of the problem are
limits that don't reflect actual traffic speeds. That's why there are
many people against photo enforcement of speed limits.

Perhaps if points could be assessed for tickets issued by speed cameras,
then there will be an uproar (hint: It already happened in Hawaii).
The result will either be removal of the cameras, or revision of the
speed limits. The former will happen much more readily.

> and like most people, I speed.

Perhaps you should direct your efforts to get the law changed so that
speed limits represent actual traffic speeds. Then you won't have to
speed anymore.

> Anyway, it looks like we're all screwed. Cameras are coming and there
> appears to be no stopping them.

Let them come and see how long they stay.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
n.umich.edu:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> For there to be an increase in rear-end collisions due to
>> RLC's,people have to be aware that RLCs are being used(or tested).
>> People generally are not that up-to-date on such things.
>
> Gee, Jim, I've driven in lots of different provinces and states where
> RLCs are being used or tested. In each case, there's been a large and
> conspicuous sign warning that red lights at the intersection ahead are
> photo-enforced.

And you actually believe most drivers pay attention to signs? ;-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > For there to be an increase in rear-end collisions due to RLC's,people
> > have to be aware that RLCs are being used(or tested). People generally
> > are not that up-to-date on such things.
>
> Gee, Jim, I've driven in lots of different provinces and states where RLCs
> are being used or tested. In each case, there's been a large and
> conspicuous sign warning that red lights at the intersection ahead are
> photo-enforced.

Then come to New York City, where the RLC intersections are
conspicously NOT marked at all (if you use an RLC intersection enough,
you learn to notice either the cantelevered poles supported camera box,
or the newer 3-tube cameras like the one at 42nd St. and 2nd Ave.) The
City Administration blathers on that this is so nobody knows which
intersection is monitored and so that you are to assume "any
intersection is monitored". The city police and DOT are also kinda
'hand-wavey' when it comes to actual number of RL running instances,
declines (or increases) in accidents, etc.
I've read of several times when vehicles stopped at a RLC intersection
will NOT get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, simply because the
traffic court will generally NOT believe you ran the light to clear the
way, and you get stuck with paying an unfair fine (I suppose those who
monitor the images are supposed to notice the Ambulance/Fire Truck
passing through immediately afterwards, but apparently they tend to
miss this concept).
If anyone remembers when this was mentioned in the Daily New's
'Gridlock Sam', and he kinda hemed and hawed and finally came up with
'you gotta get the time and location and ambulance/fire truck number'
and lots of other crappola, and then maybe you can get the ticket
dismissed... or maybe not - um, yeah - that's why nobody clears the ROW
when stopped at a RLC intersection...
(There was also talk that emergency personal should be able to
disable/override the camera remotely, but I haven't seen anything else
on this and quite frankly there's lots of talk about lots of things in
NYC )

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:23:52 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>L Sternn wrote:
>
>> I believe that these people simply are afraid of getting tickets
>> because they run red lights.
>
>Your belief is completely off the mark.

Okay, enlighten me then.

>
>> Running red lights kills, unlike speed.
>
>Only in cases where someone runs the red well after the light changed.

Ah - so we just need to lengthen the time that all lights are red and
no one can legally enter the intersection.

Great - let's bog down traffic even more so a few scofflaws can get
through the intersection at the expense of law-abiding drivers.

>If yellow light interval times were consistent with actual traffic
>speeds and typical driver reaction times and braking distances, then it
>becomes much easier to determine whether one can make it through the light.
>

That's not an argument against RLC's.

>If someone is worried about running a red light when they see a "stale"
>green light ahead, then there's something wrong with the traffic light.

No, it could mean that they're still 15 seconds away from the
intersection.

>
>> I understand how they feel because I find myself tempted to make the
>> same arguments against speed cameras, which I am against, but I really
>> have no good argument against them.
>
>It's quite easy to find many good arguments against them.

Then please present just ONE.


>For instance,
>there are several examples of interstate speed limit reductions in some
>of the larger cities in TX. IIRC, the limits were reduced from 70 to 55
>mph. This was because the air quality around those areas didn't meet
>EPA standards. Of course, it should be noted that EPA models were not
>accurately determining the primary cause of pollution. For instance,
>overall NOx emissions are really no different whether traffic is going
>70 vs 55 mph. Second, pollution could be coming from other areas
>besides traffic.

Where's the argument against cameras there?

>
>In any case, it's clear that those speed limit reductions had nothing to
>do with safety. If speed cameras were installed and used for speed
>enforcement on those highways, are you still going to say that you don't
>have a good argument against them?


Seeing as how you've not presented any, I'd have to say yes.

>
>> A little speeding doesn't hurt anyone really won't hold up in court
>
>It depends. In areas where speed limits are "prima facie," that
>argument could be used in court. But the source of the problem are
>limits that don't reflect actual traffic speeds. That's why there are
>many people against photo enforcement of speed limits.
>

That's an argument for setting the speed limit properly, not against
photo-radar.

>Perhaps if points could be assessed for tickets issued by speed cameras,

You mentioned Texas. Texas doesn't have a point system.

>then there will be an uproar (hint: It already happened in Hawaii).
>The result will either be removal of the cameras, or revision of the
>speed limits. The former will happen much more readily.

You still haven't offered any valid arguments against cameras.

>
>> and like most people, I speed.
>
>Perhaps you should direct your efforts to get the law changed so that
>speed limits represent actual traffic speeds.

Why? I simply direct my efforts against being pulled over.

> Then you won't have to
>speed anymore.



>
>> Anyway, it looks like we're all screwed. Cameras are coming and there
>> appears to be no stopping them.
>
>Let them come and see how long they stay.

They'll stay.