Red Lights and Accidents
US 71
Links to several media reports showing accidents increase with Red Lihgt
Cameras
John Lansford
The NMA is hardly an unbiased source.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
Larry G
even if unbiased - it's not just the number of accidents - it's the
severity of them also.
US 71
"John Lansford" <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pu8rk69t35hh0ma90...@4ax.com...
> "US 71" <us...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
>>
>>Links to several media reports showing accidents increase with Red Lihgt
>>Cameras
>>
> The NMA is hardly an unbiased source.
>
> John Lansford, PE
>
Did you read any of the news articles or simply ignore them?
Guy Olsen
> "US 71" <u...@cox.net> wrote:
> >http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
>
> >Links to several media reports showing accidents increase with Red Lihgt
> >Cameras
>
> The NMA is hardly an unbiased source.
>
So what? It's the reports that need to be unbiased.
Arif Khokar
> even if unbiased - it's not just the number of accidents - it's the
> severity of them also.
If it's one serious crash versus 80 fender benders, I would take the
serious crash.
Why? For one thing, that crash is going to happen regardless of whether
the camera is there or not because the cause of the crash is someone
running the light several seconds after it changed. The majority of
citations generated by RLCs are those that are due to someone crossing
the intersection line a fraction of a second after the light changed.
Those drivers, after the camera is installed, start stopping short and
as a result, more rear-end crashes occur. This causes a lot more
problems in terms of traffic, costs, etc.
Rich Piehl
But is the objective of the yellow light to stop red light running? Or
is the objective of the yellow light to warn cars that the light is
about to red and they should stop?
Larry G
Not convinced of that. A very obvious sign that says red light
camera is like a speed limit sign that says "radar controlled" Some
people are simply going to push their luck no matter whether it is a
long or short yellow light because that's there behavior at all
lights. And these people would .. if they did not change their
behavior, start to accumulate right light tickets the same way some
speeders do until the points and multiple tickets start to affect
their driver's licenses and insurance rates.
but before I'd believe a 100 to 1 ratio, I'd have to see the data
also and I'm betting that if you have signage that says "red light
camera ahead" that only the most hard-core idiots are going to still
insist on coming into the intersection "hot" and/or slamming on brakes.
Nate Nagel
> On Feb 5, 5:31 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2011 2:38 PM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>> even if unbiased - it's not just the number of accidents - it's the
>>> severity of them also.
>>
>> If it's one serious crash versus 80 fender benders, I would take the
>> serious crash.
>>
>> Why? For one thing, that crash is going to happen regardless of whether
>> the camera is there or not because the cause of the crash is someone
>> running the light several seconds after it changed. The majority of
>> citations generated by RLCs are those that are due to someone crossing
>> the intersection line a fraction of a second after the light changed.
>> Those drivers, after the camera is installed, start stopping short and
>> as a result, more rear-end crashes occur. This causes a lot more
>> problems in terms of traffic, costs, etc.
>
> Not convinced of that. A very obvious sign that says red light
> camera is like a speed limit sign that says "radar controlled" Some
> people are simply going to push their luck no matter whether it is a
> long or short yellow light because that's there behavior at all
> lights. And these people would .. if they did not change their
> behavior, start to accumulate right light tickets the same way some
> speeders do until the points and multiple tickets start to affect
> their driver's licenses and insurance rates.
studies show that most RL violations occur in the first 0.5 second after
the light turns red, and also that lengthening the yellow interval by
the same amount at a problem intersection can reduce RLRing by 90% or
more. So the number of drivers who are consciously pushing the limits
and/or grossly inattentive is nowhere near significant in many places.
(and the studies that I'm most familiar with were done in northern
Virginia, which has some of the most assaholic drivers in the universe.)
> but before I'd believe a 100 to 1 ratio, I'd have to see the data
> also and I'm betting that if you have signage that says "red light
> camera ahead" that only the most hard-core idiots are going to still
> insist on coming into the intersection "hot" and/or slamming on brakes.
Have you looked up the Armey report and read it? Followed the links to
the VA studies?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Larry G
is it an objective report and do you have the link?
I would believe most red light running occurs in the first .5 second
but doesn't that happen no matter the length of the light phase except
for ultra short signals?
We had a new light put in - with a shorter than normal yellow but it
had the opposite effect on people ... they actually slowed down even
when the light was green but they knew the yellow was imminent and
that it was a short signal.
Only a few tried to speed up and they actually had to exceed the
posted speed so they were going quite fast when they ran the light.
this is how people get T-boned. And the T-bone accident is often very
serious with significant property damage and injuries...
these cameras are the highway equivalent of surveillance video in
convenience stores... make the yellows - industry standard times or
even longer - put up the warning signs - but run the cameras and get
those that need to be caught.
Nate Nagel
do a google search for "armey report red light camera"
that should get you started with some reading material
Larry G
are you talking about Dick Armey? You gotta be kidding, right?
Nate Nagel
nope, he actually authored a paper on the issue and had it up on his web
site back when he was in Congress. it had lots of good references, too.
It's been archived by several sites because it's still mostly relevant
today.
Larry G
not exactly a dispassionate and objective seeker of the truth.. IMHO.
VDOT has a rather comprehensive suite of studies and docs on the
subject. I'd consider them more objective.
Have you see this report:
http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/RLR-ver10-Final.pdf
Red Light Running Camera
(Photo Enforcement)
Engineering Safety Analysis Guidelines
Nate Nagel
did you read it? And the references? You might be surprised.
>
> VDOT has a rather comprehensive suite of studies and docs on the
> subject. I'd consider them more objective.
>
> http://google.vipnet.org/search?site=my_collection&restrict=va-vdot&proxystylesheet=http://www.virginiadot.org/interface/vdotNEW.xslt&q=red+light
>
at least one of which is referenced by Armey
> Have you see this report:
>
> http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/RLR-ver10-Final.pdf
>
> Red Light Running Camera
> (Photo Enforcement)
> Engineering Safety Analysis Guidelines
I've seen that before, and that is why I made the comment that I did
about Virginia being unusual.
from page A-2:
K. Before the implementation of a traffic light signal violation
monitoring system at an intersection, the locality
shall complete an engineering safety analysis that addresses signal
timing and other location-specific safety
features. The length of the yellow phase shall be established based on
the recommended methodology of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers. All traffic light signal violation
monitoring systems shall provide a minimum 0.5-
second grace period between the time the signal turns red and the time
the first violation is recorded. If
recommended by the engineering safety analysis, the locality shall make
reasonable location-specific safety
improvements, including signs and pavement markings.
L. Any locality that uses a traffic light signal violation monitoring
system shall evaluate the system on a monthly
basis to ensure all cameras and traffic signals are functioning
properly. Evaluation results shall be made available
to the public.
That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be done, but to my knowledge, only
Virginia has bothered to codify it into law. This was likely in
response to the earlier study referenced in the Armey report which
showed such dramatic reductions in RLRing when the yellow interval was
adjusted. It also makes it easier for legal action to be taken by
citizens when guidelines aren't being followed. Unfortunately, human
nature being what it is, only a few die-hard driving enthusiasts will
actually seek out RLC intersections and time the lights themselves
without having received a ticket; most legal challenges come from
citizens who have been ticketed unfairly, which causes the natural
public opinion bias of "oh, he's just trying to weasel out of a ticket
that he deserved."
My suspicion is that if the law is actually followed, that RLCs will be
proven to not be profitable due to the low number of violations relative
to the cost of operating the cameras, but there are a decent number
around (I have a database of them in my GPS, mostly to warn me of the
traps in MD and DC, but it now warbles at me a lot in VA but that
doesn't worry me as much because VA doesn't use speed cameras and
theoretically they don't have short yellows at RLC intersections
anymore.) I guess time will tell however, as it's only been a couple
years since that legislation was enacted.
However, if you read the Armey report, there's a discussion in there
about how ITE guidelines have changed over the years, for the worse, but
at least theoretically in VA they are being followed, which is better
than I expect of camera implementations in general.
Larry G
so you support RLCs if done the way that Virginia does them? I don't
read Armey because I do not consider him an unbiased source - he's
clearly got an agenda - faux libertarianism
Nate Nagel
Nope, I still oppose them because it's too tempting to do it wrong
(see DC andMD for examples)
John Lansford
I'm fully aware of the studies showing that the cameras cause more
minor crashes, while preventing the more severe ones. I'm just
pointing out that any time someone puts up an NMA sponsored "study", I
already know what their 'conclusions' will look like. I.E, whatever
the NMA supports.
John Lansford
>On 2/5/2011 2:38 PM, Larry G wrote:
>
>> even if unbiased - it's not just the number of accidents - it's the
>> severity of them also.
>
>If it's one serious crash versus 80 fender benders, I would take the
>serious crash.
Not if you're the one in the T-bone crash you wouldn't.
>Why? For one thing, that crash is going to happen regardless of whether
>the camera is there or not because the cause of the crash is someone
>running the light several seconds after it changed.
Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
cameras are installed?
> The majority of
>citations generated by RLCs are those that are due to someone crossing
>the intersection line a fraction of a second after the light changed.
Which is illegal and perfectly acceptable to receive a fine for.
>Those drivers, after the camera is installed, start stopping short and
>as a result, more rear-end crashes occur. This causes a lot more
>problems in terms of traffic, costs, etc.
Got some numbers to back that up? Deaths and severe injuries are
reduced, at the expense of more property damage crashes. As a highway
engineer concerned about safety of motor vehicle operators and their
passengers, I'll take that trade off every time.
US 71
So you've already made uo your mind & don't need to be confused with facts?
John Lansford
I prefer to see studies not carried by biased sites; it wouldn't
surprise me for the NMA to conveniently ignore research that may go
against their positions on various issues.
And no, I understand that RLC's may cause more minor crashes while
reducing more severe ones. As I've said before, that's IMO an
acceptable tradeoff.
Larry G
> >news:k2cuk6tapnl2mu4cd...@4ax.com...
> >> "US 71" <u...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>"John Lansford" <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:pu8rk69t35hh0ma90...@4ax.com...
> >>>> "US 71" <u...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
>
> >>>>>Links to several media reports showing accidents increase with Red Lihgt
> >>>>>Cameras
>
> >>>> The NMA is hardly an unbiased source.
>
> >>>> John Lansford, PE
>
> >>>Did you read any of the news articles or simply ignore them?
>
> >> I'm fully aware of the studies showing that the cameras cause more
> >> minor crashes, while preventing the more severe ones. I'm just
> >> pointing out that any time someone puts up an NMA sponsored "study", I
> >> already know what their 'conclusions' will look like. I.E, whatever
> >> the NMA supports.
>
> >So you've already made uo your mind & don't need to be confused with facts?
>
> I prefer to see studies not carried by biased sites; it wouldn't
> surprise me for the NMA to conveniently ignore research that may go
> against their positions on various issues.
>
> And no, I understand that RLC's may cause more minor crashes while
> reducing more severe ones. As I've said before, that's IMO an
> acceptable tradeoff.
>
> John Lansford, PE
> --
> John's Shop of Woodhttp://wood.jlansford.net/
Another twist on this is to use countdown lights so the offenders are
not only captured on camera but we know how far past yellow and into
red they are.
I think that no matter how long the yellow is - you'll have the same
problem because people who run red lights are not counting the seconds
anyhow.. all they are doing is trying to beat a yellow light whether
that light has been in cycle for 10, 20, or 40 seconds. It's the
tipping point when it changes that tempts the red light runners.
Most of us, including myself have run yellows and we all know what the
thinking is .... I don't run them routinely and when I find myself
making a decision to keep going I KNOW I'm on borrowed time and I
know others are looking at me but some folks who run yellow/reds..
they do it all the time.. it's almost a game with them. they don't see
each occurrence as a risk .. but rather a ...coup.....
Arif Khokar
>>>> http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
> I'm fully aware of the studies showing that the cameras cause more
> minor crashes, while preventing the more severe ones. I'm just
> pointing out that any time someone puts up an NMA sponsored "study",
Where in any of the studies linked do they say they're sponsored by the NMA?
Arif Khokar
> Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
> cameras are installed?
Do they go down? I've seen studies that say the opposite. For
instance: http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. None of them are
sponsored by the NMA or thenewspaper.com
Larry G
both organizations have clear agendas and are not objective though.
They cherry pick the studies and the data from the studies to support
their views.
How many deaths/serious injuries are there from T-bones at
intersections without RLCs verses intersections with RLCs?
How about this? Your insurance won't cover you if you are determined
to have run a red light and you have no liability protection?
N8N
> On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 2/6/2011 6:39 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>
> > > Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
> > > cameras are installed?
>
> > Do they go down? I've seen studies that say the opposite. For
> > instance:http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. None of them are
> > sponsored by the NMA or thenewspaper.com
>
> both organizations have clear agendas and are not objective though.
> They cherry pick the studies and the data from the studies to support
> their views.
Of course they point you to studies that support their viewpoint.
Do you have any studies that contradict them, though?
>
> How many deaths/serious injuries are there from T-bones at
> intersections without RLCs verses intersections with RLCs?
>
> How about this? Your insurance won't cover you if you are determined
> to have run a red light and you have no liability protection?
Only if yellow interval is set according to guidelines.
nate
Larry G
I'm not convinced that the length of the yellow affects the numbers
than run the lights once you get rid of the ultra-short lights.
Some people are not going to care how long the cycle is. They are, in
fact, going to use that extra time to take even more advantage of
running the light.
There are in the studies, contradictory information that the anti-red
light folks do not present.
We still do not have enough data to yield conclusive information. For
instance, I've not see the data on the number of T-bone crashes and
that would seem to be an obvious metric to collect.
New traffic patterns can result in an increase in crashes. You'd need
to let the light stabilize over a period of time to see if the rate
stays the same or changes.
I've yet to see a list of the accidents before and after in terms of
type of accident , severity and dollar cost.
I strongly suspect that much of the opposition is not really based on
accident data but the idea that the govt is taking your picture and
prosecuting and fining you and I base that on the plethora of other
complaints on these sites that are complaining about the RLCs.
They are opposed en masse to all technology and police efforts to rein
in speeders, red-light runners and other scofflaw behavior - casting
it in terms of a big intrusive govt squashing the liberties of people.
I've gotten my share of tickets in my life including a bunch for
speeding and yes.. running about 7 yellow lights in a sequence (and
they burned my butt) but at the end of the day - my behavior was minor
league compared to what I see on the roads now days.
We have a bunch of smart asses who do not care about others... and
they drive without regard to others... and they basically need to be
reined in - in my view.
We used to excuse DWIs ..years ago.. we'd say that it was an
"accident" . We now say that the person who is a DWI is showing
callous disregard for others and needs to be delt with severely for
their behavior. People die because these folks don't care and without
the heavy-duty sanctions - they'd just keep on doing what they are
doing so we need the DUI laws if for no other reason to keep innocent
people from being killed just because some yahoo can't behave.
I consider red light running on the same level. it's shows extreme
disregard for others who do die ... and we say.. it's an "accident".
It's _not_ an accident. It's wantonly irresponsible behavior that
resulted in great harm to innocent people and one is one too many.
It's time to put a stop to these scofflaws.
I support full engineering studies by the DOT, prominent signs warning
of the cameras, a count-down that shows how far into the red you
went, and if we have an increase in rear-ends then cut the speed
limit on the approach and put cameras up to nail those who don't
reduce their speed.
We are sharing the road with others - and we need to drive that way.
John Lansford
>Another twist on this is to use countdown lights so the offenders are
>not only captured on camera but we know how far past yellow and into
>red they are.
I'm not sure that would show all that much, though. I doubt most red
light offenders run the light more than a second after the light
changes.
One thing the RLC's do stop is the "queueing" of traffic through the
intersection, especially if they're making left turns. You see this
all the time; a line of cars starts making a left turn, and the
motorists at the end don't stop turning left even after the light
turns red. RLC's stop that activity.
>I think that no matter how long the yellow is - you'll have the same
>problem because people who run red lights are not counting the seconds
>anyhow.. all they are doing is trying to beat a yellow light whether
>that light has been in cycle for 10, 20, or 40 seconds. It's the
>tipping point when it changes that tempts the red light runners.
Many drivers recognize that there's an "all red" time on most signals
to let the intersection clear prior to traffic begin moving in the
other direction. They use that knowledge to justify them running the
red light.
>Most of us, including myself have run yellows and we all know what the
>thinking is
You can't "run a yellow light". It's perfectly legal for you to go
through an intersection under a yellow light. In fact, it's legal for
you to do so even if the light changes to red while you're past the
stop bar.
John Lansford
My mistake; let me use the word "approved" in place of sponsored.
John Lansford
Thenewspaper.com appears to be really vigilant about not telling
anyone who their editors are. As for their claim they are covering
"objectively" the issues that matter most to the driving public, I
wasn't aware that only enforcement cameras and police actions were
that pressing an issue, at least compared to congestion and safety. It
really just comes across as an anti-camera, pro-speeding, anti-police
site. Makes me wonder who's behind the site too.
As for your claims that the studies "say the opposite", no they don't.
They say that injury claims have gone up, as had damage claims, but
didn't say anything about severe injuries (requiring hospitalization)
or fatalities.
Sancho Panza
> You can't "run a yellow light". It's perfectly legal for you to go
> through an intersection under a yellow light.
Not if you haven't entered the intersection:
"When a yellow light follows a green light, a motorist must stop before
entering the intersection, unless yellow appears when the vehicle is too
close to stop safely."--http://www.nj.gov/mvc/manuals/chap_04_13.html
Arif Khokar
>
>> Another twist on this is to use countdown lights so the offenders are
>> not only captured on camera but we know how far past yellow and into
>> red they are.
>
> I'm not sure that would show all that much, though. I doubt most red
> light offenders run the light more than a second after the light
> changes.
>
> One thing the RLC's do stop is the "queueing" of traffic through the
> intersection, especially if they're making left turns. You see this
> all the time; a line of cars starts making a left turn, and the
> motorists at the end don't stop turning left even after the light
> turns red. RLC's stop that activity.
Does that activity normally result in crashes that result in injuries?
A police officer stationed there would stop that behavior as well.
>> I think that no matter how long the yellow is - you'll have the same
>> problem because people who run red lights are not counting the seconds
>> anyhow.. all they are doing is trying to beat a yellow light whether
>> that light has been in cycle for 10, 20, or 40 seconds. It's the
>> tipping point when it changes that tempts the red light runners.
>
> Many drivers recognize that there's an "all red" time on most signals
> to let the intersection clear prior to traffic begin moving in the
> other direction. They use that knowledge to justify them running the
> red light.
I doubt it. For intersections I drive through, I'm not really aware of
which have an all-red interval and which do not.
>> Most of us, including myself have run yellows and we all know what the
>> thinking is
>
> You can't "run a yellow light". It's perfectly legal for you to go
> through an intersection under a yellow light. In fact, it's legal for
> you to do so even if the light changes to red while you're past the
> stop bar.
Though in some states, it's illegal if you can't exit the intersection
before the light changes (WV has a law like this, for example). I don't
agree with that since it makes it ambiguous as to whether you can
legally enter the intersection on yellow unless you already know in
advance how long the yellow light is.
Thadius
officials and governing entities are the only ones clamoring for the
Orwell agenda.
Arif Khokar
> Arif Khokar<akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2011 6:39 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>>
>>> Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
>>> cameras are installed?
>>
>> Do they go down? I've seen studies that say the opposite. For
>> instance: http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. None of them are
>> sponsored by the NMA or thenewspaper.com
>
> Thenewspaper.com appears to be really vigilant about not telling
> anyone who their editors are. As for their claim they are covering
> "objectively" the issues that matter most to the driving public, I
> wasn't aware that only enforcement cameras and police actions were
> that pressing an issue, at least compared to congestion and safety. It
> really just comes across as an anti-camera, pro-speeding, anti-police
> site. Makes me wonder who's behind the site too.
I really am not concerned about the articles thenewspaper.com publishes.
I'm just concerned about the documents they linked to. If they're
selective in which studies they publish, then so be it, but it should be
simple enough for others in this group to post references to studies
that have conclusions that show that RLCs have a safety benefit. Then
all of us would be free to review those studies and come to our own
conclusions.
> As for your claims that the studies "say the opposite", no they don't.
> They say that injury claims have gone up, as had damage claims, but
> didn't say anything about severe injuries (requiring hospitalization)
> or fatalities.
I haven't read through them in a while, but the fact that injury claims
have gone up means that there are more collisions taking place. That,
IMO, is not a safety benefit.
Arif Khokar
> I'm not convinced that the length of the yellow affects the numbers
> than run the lights once you get rid of the ultra-short lights.
Then you should be able to reference studies that changing the yellow
phase time for a given intersection has little to no effect on the red
light running rates for that intersection.
<rest of unfounded suppositions snipped>
Arif Khokar
What is the maximum rate of deceleration that, if exceeded, would be
considered an unsafe stop?
US 71
"Thadius" <@Casca.net> wrote in message
news:nCl4p.54794$Tg1....@newsfe13.iad...
Many Republican Congressmen do ;)
Nate Nagel
data says they are a small minority.
> There are in the studies, contradictory information that the anti-red
> light folks do not present.
ok, so present it. I haven't seen a whole lot that appeared anywhere
near as rigorous as the VA studies previously referenced.
> We still do not have enough data to yield conclusive information. For
> instance, I've not see the data on the number of T-bone crashes and
> that would seem to be an obvious metric to collect.
I believe that was explicitly collected in the earlier VA study (the one
done prior to the new legislation and the reintroduction of the RLCs.)
> New traffic patterns can result in an increase in crashes. You'd need
> to let the light stabilize over a period of time to see if the rate
> stays the same or changes.
>
> I've yet to see a list of the accidents before and after in terms of
> type of accident , severity and dollar cost.
>
> I strongly suspect that much of the opposition is not really based on
> accident data but the idea that the govt is taking your picture and
> prosecuting and fining you and I base that on the plethora of other
> complaints on these sites that are complaining about the RLCs.
At least in my case, my opposition is based on the large number of
instances where a for-profit company was found to be operating a camera
or cameras at intersections that had engineering flaws, usually short
yellow times, that artificially inflated the number of violations above
that which there would be if the flaws were fixed first. That says that
some people are putting money above the safety of the general public.
If a municipality needs more money, raise taxes or spend less.
> They are opposed en masse to all technology and police efforts to rein
> in speeders, red-light runners and other scofflaw behavior - casting
> it in terms of a big intrusive govt squashing the liberties of people.
I am opposed to "gotcha" laws and tactics.
> I've gotten my share of tickets in my life including a bunch for
> speeding and yes.. running about 7 yellow lights in a sequence (and
> they burned my butt) but at the end of the day - my behavior was minor
> league compared to what I see on the roads now days.
>
> We have a bunch of smart asses who do not care about others... and
> they drive without regard to others... and they basically need to be
> reined in - in my view.
and photo enforcement does little about this. There's no immediate
feedback that one has engaged in undesirable behavior, and no points on
a driver's license. Also, the knowledge that RLCs and short yellows go
hand in hand, just like speed cameras and underposted speed limits,
doesn't even make a ticket that much of a behavior modification tool, it
only fosters resentment against the greedy bastards that put them up.
> We used to excuse DWIs ..years ago.. we'd say that it was an
> "accident" . We now say that the person who is a DWI is showing
> callous disregard for others and needs to be delt with severely for
> their behavior. People die because these folks don't care and without
> the heavy-duty sanctions - they'd just keep on doing what they are
> doing so we need the DUI laws if for no other reason to keep innocent
> people from being killed just because some yahoo can't behave.
>
> I consider red light running on the same level. it's shows extreme
> disregard for others who do die ... and we say.. it's an "accident".
> It's _not_ an accident. It's wantonly irresponsible behavior that
> resulted in great harm to innocent people and one is one too many.
> It's time to put a stop to these scofflaws.
Yup. So fine the bastards that time the lights wrong in an effort to
make money.
> I support full engineering studies by the DOT, prominent signs warning
> of the cameras, a count-down that shows how far into the red you
> went, and if we have an increase in rear-ends then cut the speed
> limit on the approach and put cameras up to nail those who don't
> reduce their speed.
that won't work. speed is far more a function of the road than the
speed limit.
> We are sharing the road with others - and we need to drive that way.
the government should still play by its own rules. It's like watching a
cop speed. (something else I see nearly every time I see a cop in motion.)
Nate Nagel
www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/armey/94intervals.pdf
(that's a scan of the ITE document "Determining Vehicle Signal Change
and Clearance Intervals, just for those who mistrust anything that says
"Armey" or "thenewspaper" - I couldn't find it on the ITE web site)
on page 3 it appears that they are using a range of 10-15 ft/sec^2
(remember one g is 32 ft/sec^2) which actually seems fairly aggressive
to me. Rule of thumb that I remember is that the average street driver,
no matter how good the car/tires/brakes, starts to feel uncomfortable
above a decel of about 0.3g. Such decelerations may not even be
possible in poor weather conditions. (1.0g is pretty good for a
performance car on dry pavement with good tires.)
the July 1989 version of the same document recommended 10 ft/sec^2.
www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/armey/89intervals.pdf
I know you know all this stuff, Arif, I'm just throwing it out there.
Personally I think that 0.3g is pushing it a little bit perhaps, but
it's better than "I dunno, let's set it to 3 seconds."
Thadius
light is yellow, you're legal. Timing or duration of the yellow should
incorporate speeds and cushion and distance across the intersection.
There is no way for a semi or heavy vehicles or others to calculate an
interval with traffic in front.
We try to keep a generous interval and people keep jumping in front of
our mh, our cars and our truck. It doesn't matter what they should do or
what porch sitters think, they should do, it is what they do.
Long yellows are the real answer to eliminating many perhaps most
intersection accidents. Not allowing business to establish situations
requiring stop lights etc is an even more fundamental answer but not
likely to be addressed.
There is absolutely no doubt, that there would be no traffic cameras if
they didn't generate generous revenues, with little recourse from those
cited, without laborious and expensive time and lawyers involved.
Guy Olsen
> One thing the RLC's do stop is the "queueing" of traffic through the
> intersection, especially if they're making left turns. You see this
> all the time; a line of cars starts making a left turn, and the
> motorists at the end don't stop turning left even after the light
> turns red. RLC's stop that activity.
>
Capacity analysis takes such behavior into account under the term
"left turn sneakers". Eliminating them reduces left turning capacity,
which adds to congestion and delay. My sense is that left turn
sneakers/queuing are more likely to occur where left turn capacity is
already limited.
One thing that has yet to be mentioned in any of the RLC threads is
the role that congestion plays in red-light violations. I suspect
that signals where drivers have to wait for multiple cycles are more
prone to red light violations then those with better Levels of
Service. Therefore, improvements that reduce congestion should also
reduce red light violations. Of course, as engineering solutions go,
such improvements can be the most costly.
Another is the effect RLCs have on congestion. As described above,
anything that reduces the number of vehicles that will clear an
intersection per cycle will increase congestion/delay.
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
Guy Olsen
Yet another flaw in NJ traffic laws -- and one that (I think) is not
in compliance with the Uniform Vehicle Code. Any one have a link to
the UVC?
Guy Olsen, PE(NJ), PTOE
John Lansford
>On 2/8/2011 6:55 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>> Larry G<gross...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Another twist on this is to use countdown lights so the offenders are
>>> not only captured on camera but we know how far past yellow and into
>>> red they are.
>>
>> I'm not sure that would show all that much, though. I doubt most red
>> light offenders run the light more than a second after the light
>> changes.
>>
>> One thing the RLC's do stop is the "queueing" of traffic through the
>> intersection, especially if they're making left turns. You see this
>> all the time; a line of cars starts making a left turn, and the
>> motorists at the end don't stop turning left even after the light
>> turns red. RLC's stop that activity.
>
>Does that activity normally result in crashes that result in injuries?
It takes green time away from the other legs of the intersection,
which can lead to driver frustration and possible running of the red
time, which could lead to a crash.
>A police officer stationed there would stop that behavior as well.
So you support spending more taxpayer money to have a salaried police
officer sitting at an intersection 24 hours a day? I didn't have you
pegged as someone who'd support something like that.
>>> I think that no matter how long the yellow is - you'll have the same
>>> problem because people who run red lights are not counting the seconds
>>> anyhow.. all they are doing is trying to beat a yellow light whether
>>> that light has been in cycle for 10, 20, or 40 seconds. It's the
>>> tipping point when it changes that tempts the red light runners.
>>
>> Many drivers recognize that there's an "all red" time on most signals
>> to let the intersection clear prior to traffic begin moving in the
>> other direction. They use that knowledge to justify them running the
>> red light.
>
>I doubt it.
I don't.
> For intersections I drive through, I'm not really aware of
>which have an all-red interval and which do not.
Oh please. Every heavily travelled intersection with updated signals
has an all-red phase of a second or two for the reason I gave; to let
the traffic clear the intersection.
>>> Most of us, including myself have run yellows and we all know what the
>>> thinking is
>>
>> You can't "run a yellow light". It's perfectly legal for you to go
>> through an intersection under a yellow light. In fact, it's legal for
>> you to do so even if the light changes to red while you're past the
>> stop bar.
>
>Though in some states, it's illegal if you can't exit the intersection
>before the light changes (WV has a law like this, for example). I don't
>agree with that since it makes it ambiguous as to whether you can
>legally enter the intersection on yellow unless you already know in
>advance how long the yellow light is.
That's a dumb law IMO, since you have no idea how long the yellow is
once you've passed under the signal itself.
John Lansford
>On Feb 8, 6:55�pm, John Lansford >
>> One thing the RLC's do stop is the "queueing" of traffic through the
>> intersection, especially if they're making left turns. �You see this
>> all the time; a line of cars starts making a left turn, and the
>> motorists at the end don't stop turning left even after the light
>> turns red. �RLC's stop that activity.
>>
>
>Capacity analysis takes such behavior into account under the term
>"left turn sneakers".
It's not always possible to build that into the phasing time though.
> Eliminating them reduces left turning capacity,
>which adds to congestion and delay. My sense is that left turn
>sneakers/queuing are more likely to occur where left turn capacity is
>already limited.
Yes, it tends to happen in heavily used intersections. Those are also
the ones that are constrained as to timing, meaning it's less likely
there's any amount of time built in for the light violators.
>One thing that has yet to be mentioned in any of the RLC threads is
>the role that congestion plays in red-light violations. I suspect
>that signals where drivers have to wait for multiple cycles are more
>prone to red light violations then those with better Levels of
>Service. Therefore, improvements that reduce congestion should also
>reduce red light violations. Of course, as engineering solutions go,
>such improvements can be the most costly.
The ones around Raleigh with RLC's tend to be on arterials, with high
crossing traffic volumes as well. There are several on Capital
Boulevard and Six Forks Road that fit this description.
>Another is the effect RLCs have on congestion. As described above,
>anything that reduces the number of vehicles that will clear an
>intersection per cycle will increase congestion/delay.
Signals are always a tradeoff between moving traffic and safety. If
there's a huge difference in volume on one road compared to the other
at an intersection, you're going to get a queue on the less used route
since most of the signal time will be on the road with the most
traffic.
John Lansford
I'd say fewer fatalities and severe injuries is a safety benefit and
that most people would agree with me. Maybe you disagree, but then
that would be just your opinion.
Larry G
I did not know that. I thought if you were in the intersection when
red came on - you were violating the law.
so what are these folks complaining about.. that they are entering the
intersection when it is red? They are basically trying to "beat" the
red?
Larry G
> On 2/8/2011 6:55 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>
that's what the camera is.... just like speed cameras..
Larry G
> On 2/8/2011 7:05 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
total $$ costs - not number of accidents. how many T-bones are
there and how severe are they before and after?
I would speculate that one death is worth dozens of minor fender
benders.
Larry G
no. those who say that the length of yellow is the problem - should
prove it.
Larry G
> On 02/08/2011 05:43 PM, Larry G wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 2:44 pm, N8N<njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 8, 1:51 pm, Larry G<gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 2/6/2011 6:39 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>
> >>>>> Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
> >>>>> cameras are installed?
>
> >>>> Do they go down? I've seen studies that say the opposite. For
> >>>> instance:http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. None of them are
> >>>> sponsored by the NMA or thenewspaper.com
>
> >>> both organizations have clear agendas and are not objective though.
> >>> They cherry pick the studies and the data from the studies to support
> >>> their views.
>
> >> Of course they point you to studies that support their viewpoint.
>
> >> Do you have any studies that contradict them, though?
the studies they reference - like the VDOT study has data that
contradicts the conclusions they are drawing from cherry-picked data.
>
> >>> How many deaths/serious injuries are there from T-bones at
> >>> intersections without RLCs verses intersections with RLCs?
>
> >>> How about this? Your insurance won't cover you if you are determined
> >>> to have run a red light and you have no liability protection?
>
> >> Only if yellow interval is set according to guidelines.
>
> >> nate
>
> > I'm not convinced that the length of the yellow affects the numbers
> > than run the lights once you get rid of the ultra-short lights.
>
> > Some people are not going to care how long the cycle is. They are, in
> > fact, going to use that extra time to take even more advantage of
> > running the light.
>
> data says they are a small minority.
is that data referenced on the anti-RLC sites?
I understand that but using your logic - you'd outlaw the use of radar
because small towns use them for speed traps and it gets attention in
the papers.
radar is a tool and like all tools it can and sometimes is abused but
we don't outlaw the use of it because it can be abused.
>
> > They are opposed en masse to all technology and police efforts to rein
> > in speeders, red-light runners and other scofflaw behavior - casting
> > it in terms of a big intrusive govt squashing the liberties of people.
>
> I am opposed to "gotcha" laws and tactics.
me too but that has little to do with a particular kind of technology
or tool.
are speed cameras any more or less abused?
>
> > I've gotten my share of tickets in my life including a bunch for
> > speeding and yes.. running about 7 yellow lights in a sequence (and
> > they burned my butt) but at the end of the day - my behavior was minor
> > league compared to what I see on the roads now days.
>
> > We have a bunch of smart asses who do not care about others... and
> > they drive without regard to others... and they basically need to be
> > reined in - in my view.
>
> and photo enforcement does little about this. There's no immediate
> feedback that one has engaged in undesirable behavior, and no points on
> a driver's license. Also, the knowledge that RLCs and short yellows go
> hand in hand, just like speed cameras and underposted speed limits,
> doesn't even make a ticket that much of a behavior modification tool, it
> only fosters resentment against the greedy bastards that put them up.
the feedback is when you get your summons in the mail ... and it
affects points on your license and a copy gets sent to your insurance
company.
After you've paid the fine and have the State and the Insurance
company tell you that the NEXT one will result in even more severe
penalties - you WILL change your behavior at the lights.
your war against the "greedy bastards" is pathological guy.
>
> > We used to excuse DWIs ..years ago.. we'd say that it was an
> > "accident" . We now say that the person who is a DWI is showing
> > callous disregard for others and needs to be delt with severely for
> > their behavior. People die because these folks don't care and without
> > the heavy-duty sanctions - they'd just keep on doing what they are
> > doing so we need the DUI laws if for no other reason to keep innocent
> > people from being killed just because some yahoo can't behave.
>
> > I consider red light running on the same level. it's shows extreme
> > disregard for others who do die ... and we say.. it's an "accident".
> > It's _not_ an accident. It's wantonly irresponsible behavior that
> > resulted in great harm to innocent people and one is one too many.
> > It's time to put a stop to these scofflaws.
>
> Yup. So fine the bastards that time the lights wrong in an effort to
> make money.
consider me a greedy bastard then. I want to see the smart asses and
scofflaws held to account for their rude and careless behaviors.
>
> > I support full engineering studies by the DOT, prominent signs warning
> > of the cameras, a count-down that shows how far into the red you
> > went, and if we have an increase in rear-ends then cut the speed
> > limit on the approach and put cameras up to nail those who don't
> > reduce their speed.
>
> that won't work. speed is far more a function of the road than the
> speed limit.
not if you are using speed cameras.
>
> > We are sharing the road with others - and we need to drive that way.
>
> the government should still play by its own rules. It's like watching a
> cop speed. (something else I see nearly every time I see a cop in motion.)
>
> nate
I'm no fan of crooked/abusive cops nor govt officials that see tickets
as revenue but I'm fed up with the smart ass behavior I see that
endangers others.
Larry G
> On Feb 8, 6:55 pm, John Lansford >
>
> > One thing the RLC's do stop is the "queueing" of traffic through the
> > intersection, especially if they're making left turns. You see this
> > all the time; a line of cars starts making a left turn, and the
> > motorists at the end don't stop turning left even after the light
> > turns red. RLC's stop that activity.
>
> Capacity analysis takes such behavior into account under the term
> "left turn sneakers". Eliminating them reduces left turning capacity,
> which adds to congestion and delay. My sense is that left turn
> sneakers/queuing are more likely to occur where left turn capacity is
> already limited.
where it is limited and the cycle if fast - agree.. and you see this
where they are employing access management and signal sequencing.
>
> One thing that has yet to be mentioned in any of the RLC threads is
> the role that congestion plays in red-light violations. I suspect
> that signals where drivers have to wait for multiple cycles are more
> prone to red light violations then those with better Levels of
> Service. Therefore, improvements that reduce congestion should also
> reduce red light violations. Of course, as engineering solutions go,
> such improvements can be the most costly.
>
> Another is the effect RLCs have on congestion. As described above,
> anything that reduces the number of vehicles that will clear an
> intersection per cycle will increase congestion/delay.
most folks who are NOT familiar with the short left turn light will
just stop and be frustrated but the folks who ARE familiar with the
short light - will try to not get caught at the light.
You can see sometimes multiple cars trying to follow the last
"jumper".
But these do not cause T-Bone crashes since the ongoing traffic is
stopped and just starting again.
In my area - I've seen the left turners KEEP the green line traffic
from coming.
Larry G
severity and total dollar costs comparatively?
the anti websites are mostly "anti" - and they imply that studies show
the opposite but they really do not engage in an objective analysis at
all just cherry picking the data and reports that support their
position.
Arif Khokar
That has already been done:
See page 2-22 of
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf and
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2650.asp, and this
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/va-fairridge2001.pdf
(comparing February and March to April and May), and
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/armey/80duration.pdf.
Now, no offense, but either put up, or shut up.
gpsman
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >which have an all-red interval and which do not.
For the record, I believe that is the first instance of something you
don't know.
> Oh please. Every heavily travelled intersection with updated signals
> has an all-red phase of a second or two for the reason I gave; to let
> the traffic clear the intersection.
Seems unnecessary. If you can see your light is green I think you can
be assumed to see a vehicle in the way.
I have to believe some of the rationale of the all-red phase is to
attempt to prevent Leonard Light Runner from rudely introducing
himself to Danny Drag Racer.
There's a blind intersection I frequent , both streets with pretty
steep grades, speed limit/s 25, an all-red interval of 2 seconds, and
I've seen one car come through there at at least 50, 3 seconds after
that.
Parenthetically, you ought to see people trying to cross the street in
the mid-block 2-flashing caution lights crosswalk down the street.
It's a low income/coin laundry area. Doddering old folks and young
mothers toting/dragging toddlers, etc.
They'll stand there until the cows come home waiting for their ROW to
be granted.
To be fair, it's a pretty stupid place for a crosswalk, and when I
stop for a pedestrian there opposing traffic has stopped exactly once,
and if parked cars aren't blocking someone will barrel around me on
the R.
I get the distinct feeling yielding the ROW might be hazardous to
their health.
-----
- gpsman
Larry G
> On 2/9/2011 9:22 AM, Larry G wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 7:59 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> >> Then you should be able to reference studies that changing the yellow
> >> phase time for a given intersection has little to no effect on the red
> >> light running rates for that intersection.
>
> >> <rest of unfounded suppositions snipped>
>
> > no. those who say that the length of yellow is the problem - should
> > prove it.
>
> That has already been done:
>
> (comparing February and March to April and May), andhttp://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/armey/80duration.pdf.
>
> Now, no offense, but either put up, or shut up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
this article is much more objective and in reading it became convinced
that you do have a point on the length of the yellow because of
speeds.
" Most municipalities in the world use an equation derived by the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Departments of Transportation
began to apply this equation to yellow lights in 1965. In order to use
this equation properly, the equation predicates that drivers know how
far the safe braking distance point is from the intersection.[19]
ITE's equation demands that the driver must stop if the light turns
yellow before he gets to this point. The equation demands that the
driver must go if the light turns yellow after he passes this point.
The problem is that no one has heard of this point let alone knows
where it is. The driver has to guess. Since Departments of
Transportation never reveal this location, they have created the
condition of a gamble."
Of course .... that means that the length of the yellow is only one
issue and the other is the speed.
So if you lower the speed - you can also reduce the length of the
yellow.
the article also said this:
" Many red light camera programs provide motorists with grace periods
of up to half a second."
so that implies that there is a way to protect those who are not
chronic scofflaws from periodic/random incidents.
and I 'm in favor of this. I would see to target only the most
serious and chronic offenders ...
just like anything else - there will always be officials and LE that
will abuse these tools whether they be blinking red lights, radar or
even stop signs where people are charged for not coming to a complete
stop.
N8N
I'd rather reduce both. From a purely selfish perspective, I tend to
drive machinery that's well past its "best before" date so a bent
fender may be impossible to replace economically (that is, for less
than the book value of the vehicle) as most yards around here don't
keep anything over 10 years old. Anything that increases my risk of
getting in any kind of collision at all, I'm opposed to.
nate
US 71
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
this article is much more objective and in reading it became convinced
that you do have a point on the length of the yellow because of
speeds.
Like Wikipedia is a reliable source.
John Lansford
>On Feb 9, 5:17 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > For intersections I drive through, I'm not really aware of
>> >which have an all-red interval and which do not.
>
>For the record, I believe that is the first instance of something you
>don't know.
Uhhh, yeah, whatever you say there.
>> Oh please. Every heavily travelled intersection with updated signals
>> has an all-red phase of a second or two for the reason I gave; to let
>> the traffic clear the intersection.
>
>Seems unnecessary. If you can see your light is green I think you can
>be assumed to see a vehicle in the way.
I suppose the people who put the all-red phase into many signals know
more about this subject than you, though. They certainly believe it
to be necessary.
>I have to believe some of the rationale of the all-red phase is to
>attempt to prevent Leonard Light Runner from rudely introducing
>himself to Danny Drag Racer.
That would be one benefit.
John Lansford
That's what I've noticed as well. In high capacity situations the
left turning traffic continues well into the green light phase,
blocking the intersection for those trying to go straight through.
John Lansford
>I did not know that. I thought if you were in the intersection when
>red came on - you were violating the law.
Not in NC you aren't; you just have to enter the box while the light
is still yellow.
>so what are these folks complaining about.. that they are entering the
>intersection when it is red? They are basically trying to "beat" the
>red?
Exactly. Red light cameras only fine you if you enter the
intersection while the light is red. I've gone through several RLC
intesections while the yellow was on and never had a fine sent to me.
In fact, there is a very short interval after the light changes to red
where the camera won't go off either, but that interval is a fraction
of a second.
John Lansford
>On Feb 8, 8:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2011 05:43 PM, Larry G wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 2:44 pm, N8N<njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 8, 1:51 pm, Larry G<gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> On 2/6/2011 6:39 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
>> >>>>> cameras are installed?
>>
>> >>>> Do they go down? I've seen studies that say the opposite. For
>> >>>> instance:http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. None of them are
>> >>>> sponsored by the NMA or thenewspaper.com
>>
>> >>> both organizations have clear agendas and are not objective though.
>> >>> They cherry pick the studies and the data from the studies to support
>> >>> their views.
>>
>> >> Of course they point you to studies that support their viewpoint.
>>
>> >> Do you have any studies that contradict them, though?
How about this one?
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/
It does recognize that rear-end crashes tend to go up at RLC sites,
but that the overall benefit is positive and acceptable.
John Lansford
>but where on the anti RLC sites do they show a comparison of the
>severity and total dollar costs comparatively?
>
>the anti websites are mostly "anti" - and they imply that studies show
>the opposite but they really do not engage in an objective analysis at
>all just cherry picking the data and reports that support their
>position.
>
>
This article on the FHWA's website goes into a cost/benefit analysis
of RLC's, and concludes they do have a positive impact on safety
despite the rear end crash increase.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/
Rich Piehl
How could anyone quantify the the cost benefit of people not injured
maimed or killed of the course of their lifetimes as a result of the
saving of accidents caused by RLC?
Larry G
wrote:
the same way they compute lives saved from other safety improvements
like seat belts.
N8N
Not to mention allowing traffic to clear a wide intersection on red
which may have legally entered the intersection on yellow, where a
longer yellow interval may not be warranted by approach speed. (e.g.
wide intersection, such as a four lane road with median and turn
lanes, but cross street has, say, 30 MPH speed limit)
Anyone who ever thought gpsman would make a good traffic engineer
raise your hand?
nate
N8N
> Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 8, 8:11 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> On 02/08/2011 05:43 PM, Larry G wrote:
>
> >> > On Feb 8, 2:44 pm, N8N<njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 8, 1:51 pm, Larry G<gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, Arif Khokar<akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> On 2/6/2011 6:39 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>
> >> >>>>> Then why do the incidence of severe crashes goes down when redlight
> >> >>>>> cameras are installed?
>
> >> >>>> Do they go down? I've seen studies that say the opposite. For
> >> >>>> instance:http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. None of them are
> >> >>>> sponsored by the NMA or thenewspaper.com
>
> >> >>> both organizations have clear agendas and are not objective though.
> >> >>> They cherry pick the studies and the data from the studies to support
> >> >>> their views.
>
> >> >> Of course they point you to studies that support their viewpoint.
>
> >> >> Do you have any studies that contradict them, though?
>
> How about this one?
>
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/
>
> It does recognize that rear-end crashes tend to go up at RLC sites,
> but that the overall benefit is positive and acceptable.
I don't consider an increase in crashes to be "positive and
acceptable" especially when there are other options available that do
not have those effects.
nate
N8N
That would be about the only common instance of what appears to be
deliberate RLRing that I see on anything resembling a regular basis.
I wouldn't mind having those drivers nailed by cameras, but I'm not
even sure if they work that way.
nate
gpsman
Of course not. To you, a crash is a crash. 1 injured or 1 dead seems
all samey-same when your head is packed tight full of shit.
> especially when there are other options available that do
> not have those effects.
That's because as a Usenet "engineer" you are prohibited from
considering the scientific principle stating "correlation does not
imply causation" when forming your conclusions.
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 9, 5:17 am, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Arif Khokar <akhokar1...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > For intersections I drive through, I'm not really aware of
> >> >which have an all-red interval and which do not.
>
> >For the record, I believe that is the first instance of something you
> >don't know.
>
> Uhhh, yeah, whatever you say there.
That was directed toward the quoted, not you.
Since that's all I had to say to him, I included it in my reply to
you.
gpsman regrets any confusion this may have caused.
-----
- gpsman
Larry G
the question is - is this kind of behavior new or more frequent than
before?
Larry G
if you had to chose between increased crashes and increased deaths and
permanent injury?
I'm not even convinced that increasing crashes after the initial "burn
in" (new traffic pattern) period are the choice especially if the
speed limit is also reduced (and enforced by speed cameras).
At some point, after the changes are fully recognized and people adapt
like they would for a new traffic signal or other change - you're
basically dealing with people who are chronic scofflaws.
Rich Piehl
Counting number of lives is different than applying a dollar amount to
them. You said cost benefit. That means money.
Larry G
there are dollars assigned to lives as well as permanent injuries.
There are standards for this as with anything.
A life in that context is less costly that the lifetime care required
for a permanent injury - which CAN be derived from actual data.
Whether you are talking about seat belts or Dioxin or unsafe drugs -
the common metric is dollars and that's true even if the govt is not
involved in it at all and it's a civil suit seeking compensation for
damage - injuries, death, property damage.
gpsman
>
> At some point, after the changes are fully recognized and people adapt
> like they would for a new traffic signal or other change - you're
> basically dealing with people who are chronic scofflaws.
Or, the oblivious. Which is why the "revenue stream" can only
reasonably be expected to quickly slow to a trickle.
Cities have really taken it in the shorts negotiating their deals on
the presumption that motorists won't stop running red lights...
although there is evidence that fines do not alter behavior.
I think it was MD where ~75% of motorists ticketed for speeding got
another ticket for speeding within 12 months.
-----
- gpsman
Larry G
really? you mean if you lose your insurance and or your license from
too many tickets/POINTS it does not alter your behavior?
gpsman
> On Feb 10, 10:38 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Cities have really taken it in the shorts negotiating their deals on
> > the presumption that motorists won't stop running red lights...
> > although there is evidence that fines do not alter behavior.
>
> > I think it was MD where ~75% of motorists ticketed for speeding got
> > another ticket for speeding within 12 months.
>
>
> really? you mean if you lose your insurance and or your license from
> too many tickets/POINTS it does not alter your behavior?
If the number of crashes involving at-fault motorists with no
insurance and no license or a suspended license or a revoked license
is any indication I'd have to conclude the intended effect often
misses its mark.
-----
- gpsman
N8N
I don't, not if engineering methods are used instead of or prior to
RLCs.
nate
N8N
For once, I believe that gpsman is correct, many motorists who lose
their licenses for whatever reason simply continue to drive without
them, because there aren't good, legal options available to them.
nate
Larry G
where is the evidence guys? Are you saying that all these other
rules and laws did not produce people who lost their licenses and
drove anyhow and the advent of RLC has resulted in this?
ha ha ha.. come on guys...
If a lot of states - if you have been judged guilty of driving without
a license multiple times.. more bad stuff starts happening to you...
and can land you behind bars...
A lot people are smarter than that. They KNOW that if they don't
correct their behavior that ... "I fought the law and the law won"....
will happen.
We had this same discussion back when we were talking about what
happens to chronic DUI offenders... and I hate to tell you but we did
not do away with the DUI laws because we were afraid that if convicted
that these folks would just continue to drive. Some will - and many
will not. Some will and will go to jail. Others will be smart enough
to realize that they've got to change.
Larry G
I agree with that approach. I think the DOT should have final approval
based on engineering and safety issues that take precedence over
revenue potential.
In fact, I'd have a stipulation that the revenues could ONLY be used
for safety projects approved by the DOT.
gpsman
Non sequitur. They continue to drive because they are irresponsible.
They have no "good legal options" because they lost their licenses,
which, besides being in most cases a lengthy process, is an easily
predictable and preventable event... just like the crashes they so
often cause.
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
> On Feb 10, 12:04 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <snipped>
> > On Feb 10, 11:27 am, gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > " there is evidence that fines do not alter behavior."
>
> > > > really? you mean if you lose your insurance and or your license from
> > > > too many tickets/POINTS it does not alter your behavior?
>
> > > If the number of crashes involving at-fault motorists with no
> > > insurance and no license or a suspended license or a revoked license
> > > is any indication I'd have to conclude the intended effect often
> > > misses its mark.
>
> rules and laws did not produce people who lost their licenses and
> drove anyhow and the advent of RLC has resulted in this?
>
> ha ha ha.. come on guys...
I'm pretty sure that's not what I'm saying.
> If a lot of states - if you have been judged guilty of driving without
> a license multiple times.. more bad stuff starts happening to you...
> and can land you behind bars...
>
> A lot people are smarter than that. They KNOW that if they don't
> correct their behavior that ... "I fought the law and the law won"....
> will happen.
>
> We had this same discussion back when we were talking about what
> happens to chronic DUI offenders... and I hate to tell you but we did
> not do away with the DUI laws because we were afraid that if convicted
> that these folks would just continue to drive
I'm sure I'm not saying anything like that.
> Some will - and many
> will not. Some will and will go to jail. Others will be smart enough
> to realize that they've got to change.
In my case "the intended effect often misses its mark" is not intended
to indicate all or a majority.
All I know is, it is not uncommon to read reports of crashes that
include the motorist at-fault having a laundry list of violations and/
or no license and/or no insurance.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism
-----
- gpsman
Larry G
yes indeed. I'm quite sure if we did a little prison poll - we'd end
up with a high percentage of the inmates explaining that their current
circumstances are due mostly to the lack of "good, legal options
available to them".
I realize that the point made was that if you made a law too strict
and onerous that a large percentage of the public may ignore it.
And I agree a little depending on what the penalties are and point out
that DUI law is pretty draconian these days and instead of widespread
flaunting of the law - the opposite has happened - in part because the
penalties escalate to much more harsh sanctions for repeat offenders.
DUI deaths have gone down and DUI crime has gone done if not mistaken.
A person that occasionally receives a speeding ticket can actually
work the points off with good behavior. But they also know that
multiple repeat offenses is going to bring a load of bad stuff if they
continue that behavior.
now.. just substitute "speeding" with RLC and work the rules the same
way and I'll bet the outcome will be the same also.
John Lansford
>where is the evidence guys? Are you saying that all these other
>rules and laws did not produce people who lost their licenses and
>drove anyhow and the advent of RLC has resulted in this?
No, but there's certainly evidence that having a driver's license
revoked doesn't always mean that person will not drive a vehicle. For
example, convicted drunk drivers lose their license for a period of
time, and this is true in every state. However, repeat drunk drivers
often are caught without a valid license, so just losing the license
doesn't stop the behavior.
>ha ha ha.. come on guys...
>
>If a lot of states - if you have been judged guilty of driving without
>a license multiple times.. more bad stuff starts happening to you...
>and can land you behind bars...
You've got to be caught first though. That's not a certainty, and
even when we're talking about drunk drivers it is not always a
deterrent.
>We had this same discussion back when we were talking about what
>happens to chronic DUI offenders... and I hate to tell you but we did
>not do away with the DUI laws because we were afraid that if convicted
>that these folks would just continue to drive. Some will - and many
>will not. Some will and will go to jail. Others will be smart enough
>to realize that they've got to change.
But it's naive to think that a law that says "you've lost your
driver's license" for repeat or egregious violation means the offender
is now off the street.
John Lansford
>> How could anyone quantify the the cost benefit of people not injured
>> maimed or killed of the course of their lifetimes as a result of the
>> saving of accidents caused by RLC?
>
>the same way they compute lives saved from other safety improvements
>like seat belts.
I've got a program at work that we use to determine the cost/benefit
value of putting up traffic barriers vs leaving the obstacle
unprotected. The consequence of vehicles hitting a rigid object is
included in the equation, along with the monetary cost of a severe
injury or death to the motorist. Those costs are then compared to the
cost of the barrier, plus the injury/damage costs for vehicles
striking it. If the barrier costs are lower than the unprotected
costs, the barrier is warranted.
IIRC a fatality has a cost of $2 million. So yes, fatalities and
injuries can be and are quantified in a cost benefit analysis.
Rich Piehl
That's an actuarial cost.
Ask a child that has lost a parent. Or a parent that has lost a child.
Or someone that has lost a spouse. Ask them if that number is right.
Offer them $2 million dollars and see if everything is better.
Arif Khokar
[re: deliberate red light running by left turning traffic]
> the question is - is this kind of behavior new or more frequent than
> before?
It depends on the intersection. I think the problem stems from traffic
that takes too long to start up when the light turns green. Many times,
I've been the 5th or 6th car back and see the light turn green, wait for
30 seconds to start moving and see the light change to yellow, and then
end up being the second car back when the light changes to red. It
really shouldn't take more than 5 seconds to start moving in that
situation, but the sloths mess it up for everyone else. It's been so
bad that I've had to hold back when accelerating on a bicycle so I don't
rear end the sloth in front of me at some of these traffic lights.
Sancho Panza
> On 2/10/2011 10:21 AM, Larry G wrote:
> [re: deliberate red light running by left turning traffic]
>
>> the question is - is this kind of behavior new or more frequent than
>> before?
>
> It depends on the intersection. I think the problem stems from traffic
> that takes too long to start up when the light turns green.
Intense conversations on cellphones often cause that. Not to mention
texting.
Larry G
I've noticed this also and I attribute it to people fiddling with
their cell phones.
Larry G
agree.... I'm pretty sure that these delays started with cell phones
and texting became more popular.
Larry G
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
> On 2/10/2011 6:22 PM, John Lansford wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
of course it is not but if you put an even higher number on a life
even more strict enforcement and safety features are cost effective.
But your point needs to be expanded to include all manner of deaths
and their causes and how we figure cost-benefit to justify spending
resources.
My regulation is based on this.
For instance, some folks think the govt has no business telling people
how to manufacture cribs but the parents who lost a child due to the
crib - demand regulation.
The person who dies from a clear error in an operation is going to
what someone to pay and that means if you don't have legislation then
you have a judge decide and do you really what one judge (or jury)
saying a life is worth 10K and another one say a life is worth 100
million?
gpsman
I attribute it to exaggeration and/or a distorted perception of time,
the invalid comparison of bike/car acceleration notwithstanding.
People are notoriously bad at estimating time, and there is a
psychological aspect to human time perception/distortion, e.g., during
a crash the participants report perceiving it in slow motion.
I think if the OP were to put a timepiece to it they would find 30
seconds is actually less than 10.
-----
- gpsman
Clark F Morris
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
>
>this article is much more objective and in reading it became convinced
>that you do have a point on the length of the yellow because of
>speeds.
>
>
>
>Like Wikipedia is a reliable source.
>
In this case the Wikipedia article has links to decent official
studies as well as those of the opponents.
Clark Morris
Larry G
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:45:40 -0600, "US 71" <u...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera
>
> >this article is much more objective and in reading it became convinced
> >that you do have a point on the length of the yellow because of
> >speeds.
>
> >Like Wikipedia is a reliable source.
>
> In this case the Wikipedia article has links to decent official
> studies as well as those of the opponents.
yup. Wikipedia provides references to most all of the content they
provide that allows the reader to go to the actual source and that's
way, way more than many references provide.
You will not find Wikipedia providing a one-sided view of something
because it allows BOTH sides to provide their view as long as what
they provide is backed up by source references and both sides agree as
to the facts and the views which are clearly delineated in the
narrative.
John David Galt
> surprise me for the NMA to conveniently ignore research that may go
> against their positions on various issues.
Government sites (and supposedly neutral groups like the Insurance
Institute for Highway Robbery) are no more unbiased than grassroots
groups like the NMA. They just own enough of the media to make most
people think they are "mainstream". (And the government ones make a
mockery of democracy by extorting funding from their opponents.)
Larry G
wrote:
in which case you just believe what you wish to believe, eh?
N8N
It seems to me that the anti-camera sites/studies do a pretty good job
of explaining concepts like the "dilemma zone" and backing them up
with papers often from "biased" organizations like FHWA or ITE. The
pro-camera people for the most part don't even attempt to address
those issues. So who's more credible again?
nate
Larry G
the "anti" sites do a good job of cherry-picking while ignoring other
evidence that is usually present in many of the studies they
reference.
There are some honest issues involved but no more or less than we saw
and stil see with other technologies like radar especially when it
first came out.
The "anti" sites - if you go look at their entire site are ANTI GOVT
in general and oppose any/all technology used by the govt to catch law
breakers.
The "anti" sites portray the larger issue as a conspiracy by the govt
to go after innocents ....or those who commit minor infractions.
Here's the NMA banner page:
What Is The National Motorists Association?
The idea behind the National Motorists Association is that when
motorists join together, in one organization, to represent their
rights and interests as drivers, they will no longer be ignored and
exploited by federal, state and local governments."
"The Newspaper" is another rabid anti-enforcement site that rails
against
the "injustices" of govt enforcement of vehicular laws including DUI:
2/10/2011
Federal Court Upholds DUI Jailing of Sober Man
US Court of Appeals denies relief to sober Army veteran jailed for
DUI.
Police Enforcement / Drunk Driving Laws READ MORE>>
12/27/2010
DC: Bogus Breathalyzer Results May Go Back a Decade
Whistleblower contends Washington, DC breath testing machines have not
been accuracy checked since 2000.
Police Enforcement / Drunk Driving Laws READ MORE>>
9/23/2010
California: Cop Accused of Faking DUI Reports
Sacramento County, California district attorney dismisses 79 drunk
driving cases because arresting officer falsified evidence.
Police Enforcement / Drunk Driving Laws READ MORE>>"
Both sites make it clear that they are opposed to govt policies to
enforce traffic laws - across a wide spectrum by selectively choosing
what appear to be individual abuses (which do happen).... but the
vast, vast majority of people in this country want drunk drivers off
the roads and would never agree to do away with the laws because a few
bad cops abused their duty.
and that's the basic problem ....
these sites view the govt efforts as conspiracies to persecute the
unwary and it's just not the case in the vast majority of cases.
so yes.. they are extremely biased and really make no secret of it...
gpsman
> of explaining concepts like the "dilemma zone" and backing them up
> with papers often from "biased" organizations like FHWA or ITE.
I didn't know it took that much to explain "dilemma zone", or that the
concept needed backing up.
> The
> pro-camera people for the most part don't even attempt to address
> those issues. So who's more credible again?
WAG: Could it be "the people" with their "credentials"...?
Why is your comparison anti-camera "site/studies" v. pro-camera
"people"...?
Why do you write so fucking vaguely...?
Why don't "anti-camera studies" suggest predetermined conclusions
looking for data to you...?
-----
- gpsman
N8N
Biased in a way that I fully support 100%. Revenue is no excuse for
abuses and/or shoddy engineering work on the part of government. We
need more organizations like the NMA to stand up and DEMAND that the
government play by rules that are fair to all, and to be loud and
vocal about it.
In short, join the NMA, please donate, and support them in their
worthy causes. I would far rather we have more organizations looking
out for the rights of the average citizens and not the pocketbooks of
vendors of photo equipment, radar equipment, or insurance companies.
nate