The Chainlink

Red Light Cameras - Pro or No?

I've noticed that our friends at the ATA have become quite vocal in support of red light cameras.  I wonder if camera-love is widespread among their membership base (in which I'm included).  I always ride when I'm not working, but I have to drive on the clock, and I've been nailed twice.  Kinda rubs me the wrong way, especially because Chicago seems to have the shortest yellows I've ever seen.  Opinions?  
 

Views: 446

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on March 4, 2010 at 12:39pm
Joe TV said:
I get the impression some people here feel justified in supporting unfair policies out of some kind of punitive impulse toward motorists.
It's not about being punitive, it's about saving lives. And we obviously disagree about whether it's unfair.

Joe TV said:
This is the only reason to articulate the argument that a 4.5 second yellow is bad because people would still run it and that ticketing even drivers who WOULD stop if the light was a REASONABLE length is preferable to giving them a fair shake. By that logic, a 1 second yellow is even a better option because people would have to drive very slowly to stop in time, and if some people doing the speed limit are tagged because a 1 second yellow is completely impossible to stop for, then so be it. A "tax" is collected. Of course, that's a ridiculous proposal.
Anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. You could say that by the same logic of extending yellow times to 4.5 seconds, we should extend them even further. How about seven seconds, or ten? Wouldn't drivers just eventually ignore the yellow because they think they can still get through before the red? And how is that much different than what happens now?

Yes, the whole idea is to get people to slow down, and to stop. That's what saves lives.

Look, if you want to have a discussion about whether yellow light timings are off, that's fine. I don't necessarily disagree. But nothing about that convinces me that we shouldn't enforce the laws, or that we shouldn't give law enforcement the tools they need.

Joe TV said:
Yes, some people will push it no matter what. But those who intend to obey the law deserve a law that's reasonable. These folks would be less likely to run "orange" lights if they felt safe stopping.
Really? So if the yellow was longer, those same two cars wouldn't gun it? And they wouldn't try to race ahead when the light turned green? And they wouldn't speed? I think you're putting way too much faith in the idea of simply adjusting yellow light timings to encourage safer driving. It's the drivers who "push it no matter what" who need to be dissuaded from that behavior, and the most effective way to do that is to enforce the laws vigorously. And while nobody seems to thinks they're the bad driver, I would argue that a majority of drivers are in that group.

Joe TV said:
If you want a "tax," fine, I have no problem. The city stickers, for example - a revenue booster - but at least the city isn't insincerely pushing it as a safety issue. This situation is - cue the chorus - WRONG AND UNJUST
I don't know whether "the city" is being sincere or not. I do believe that ActiveTrans is, though. And I think I'm being sincere in stating that this is a safety issue. Yes, there are a few studies which show a temporary uptick in crashes when cameras are installed, but almost every reputable study shows a long-term decline.

Yes, laws and their enforcement should be fair. And people should be able to walk and cycle without getting killed. There's always a tradeoff, and like I said, I'd rather err on the side of catching more red light runners and saving lives.

Joe TV said:
Here's my argument AGAIN - If you don't want people running red lights, you got to give them a yellow that can live with.
See, when you talk about what people can "live with," you're being allegorical. When I talk about what people can live with, I'm being literal. Actual human lives are at stake here.

And here's my response AGAIN - merely adjusting yellow light timings is not going to make our streets safer. Motorist groups always try to use this logic: "If we only raised the speed limit to more closely reflect the speeds people are going anyway, then fewer people would speed." So we raise it from 55 to 70, and guess what? Now everyone is going 75 or 80. Likewise, if you raise the yellow light timings, people are still going to "push it."

More to the point, getting rid of the cameras will only encourage more of this dangerous behavior of running "orange" lights.

And here's my other argument about the cameras AGAIN - If you do get a ticket, wouldn't you rather have actual physical evidence instead of it simply being your word against a cop's? Isn't that more fair?

I also don't buy the argument that people need to run red lights to avoid being rear-ended. First of all, if you're not speeding, you shouldn't need to slam on the brakes. If you can't react in one second or less, you probably shouldn't be driving anyway. Even if you do need to slam the brakes and there's someone behind you being even more reckless, you're better off having a fender bender from being rear-ended than you are getting T-boned by cross traffic. And you're less likely to hit a pedestrian. Plus, it will be considered the other driver's fault.

Joe TV said:
But that's not what the city wants. The city wants your money. The estimate I read in the trib is $75 million a year grossed by those cams. I bet they'd make the yellows even shorter if they thought they could get away with it.
Again, I can't speak to what the city wants. What I want is safer streets. If the revenue generated from more robust enforcement also happens to reduce the disparity between what drivers pay and the costs they incur on the rest of us, that's all the better, but that's not the main goal, at least not for me.
Permalink Reply by Jessica on March 4, 2010 at 12:48pm
I live in Hammond, Indiana. Ya know, where the yellows are good and long.

We run yellows HARDER because the car that is further back still has a chance to 'make it through,' and has that much more time to accelerate, ending up with people going FASTER through red lights. I'm not trying to dissuade your argument persay, just pointing out from experience what *actually* happens.

The only time I'm forced to run yellows is when I'm pulling a horse trailer. Live animals + hard stops = big big trouble. I toot my horn a couple times, and I rarely ever have to do it. I'm always covering my brakes when I approach a stale green.
Permalink Reply by David Lieb on March 4, 2010 at 1:22pm
And I got to witness an accident a couple weeks ago that I maintain was CAUSED by red light cameras. Previous to their existence, the rule in Chicagoland has been "Don't stop on yellow, because you WILL get hit by the guy behind you," with the cameras, more drivers are slamming on their brakes the instant it goes yellow, even when they are technically already IN the intersection and should NOT stop. That is what happened in Des Plaines at Miner and River. A BMW stopped abruptly at a yellow and got plowed into by a Caddy who would have had plenty of time to be through the intersection under yellow. No, there is no camera at that intersection, but some drivers are paranoid. Besides, who expects a Bimmer to stop for a light of any color ;-)
Permalink Reply by Jessica on March 4, 2010 at 1:24pm
What do you think would have happened had the caddy been following at an appropriate distance and paying attention?
Permalink Reply by David Lieb on March 4, 2010 at 1:26pm
And where do you get the idea that he wasn't?
Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on March 4, 2010 at 1:40pm
David Lieb said:
And where do you get the idea that he wasn't?
If the driver was following at the appropriate distance and speed and paying attention the driver would have had time to stop safely. That is the whole point of appropriate distance and speed and paying attention.
Permalink Reply by David Lieb on March 4, 2010 at 2:01pm
Had he allowed enough distance between himself and the Bimmer to have avoided the accident, someone else's car would have gotten inserted. This is Chicagoland commuting traffic we are talking about here.

The Bimmer reacted in an atypical manner, causing the accident. There is neither reason nor need to stop the moment the light turns yellow. The way Illinois traffic laws are written, yellow does not mean stop and green does not mean go. You are not to enter an intersection under red, but it is allowable (and wise) to do so under yellow. You may not enter an intersection under green until it is clear. By doing the unexpected, the Bimmer was at fault.
Permalink Reply by Sean W. on March 4, 2010 at 5:24pm
Dan Korn said:
If you're following so closely that you can't see traffic signals, you're breaking the law. If you're driving too fast for the conditions, you're breaking the law. The "three second rule" may be fine in good weather, but not when it's snowing.

Not to belabor the point, but at 20mph the 3s rule would be over 5 car lengths. As noted by another poster, more space than that in Chicago and another car is going to jump in the gap.


...I did a bit of trig/algebra, and if the truck fully entered the intersection just as the light was turning yellow, I would have seen the signal with about 53 ft to go and 1.8s left on the yellow. Since I know he accelerated before I could see the signal, I assume the yellow had started before he entered, leaving me with the same distance to cover but with less time to do so. A 3 second yellow just isn't long enough to account for such situations, regardless of road conditions.


Okay, so you had your due process and it didn't go your way. If you really did get a bum rap, then I feel bad for you. But that anecdote doesn't convince me that the entire traffic regulation and enforcement system should be thrown out. Am I surprised that the judge dismissed your argument that the problem was that the traffic signal was "insufficient" for you to be able to stop? No. More to the point, if you had been issued a ticket by a cop, would you have fared any better in court?


I'm not convinced that a cop would have issued a ticket, because he would have seen what had happened, and possibly judged that I did the safest thing possible given my circumstances. And if he/she did it would have been a moving violation, and I would have the chance to defend myself in traffic court. As it was, the hearing officer could only decide in my favor if I could prove that I didn't own the car.

Even moreso than my own anecdotal story, I don't like the idea of increased enforcement through technological means without a commensurate increase in the ability to contest alleged violations. As it stands, the city now issues orders of magnitude more red light tickets while reducing the grounds for successful contesting to near zero. It's win-win for the department of revenue and the private contractors that skim off the top, and lose-lose for motorists.
Permalink Reply by Chris B on March 5, 2010 at 12:34pm
3 second or not , regardless, study after study has confirmed increasing yellow light times is the best way to increase safety at an intersection. Some other non revenue generating changes that have proven to increase safety in studies are:
2. having a short "all red" in the cycle, so it's red all 4 ways between changing
3. using larger lights

But, when a city has the choice between the above 3 items, and having a contractor install a camera and giving them money, which do you think they'd choose?

I think they would be ok, but ONLY if we also mandate increasing the yellow light times. There have been lawsuits against cities that shortened the yellow light times below that which state law allows. That is, cities have been caught breaking the law shortening them below even 3 seconds, in order to generate revenue. The camera practically invites municipal officials to make our streets less safe, not more.
Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 5, 2010 at 1:03pm
Anecdotal bits from:
Denver:
Fort Collins put in cameras on South College Avenue at Drake Road in 1997. For eight years, an average of 166 tickets were generated every month, while the accident rate at the corner went up 83 percent over 10 years. In August 2005, traffic engineers bumped the yellow light from four seconds to five. "Within a week, the police called us," said Ward Stanford, acting traffic engineer. "They knew pretty quick we had done something because the infractions went down significantly."
Atlanta:
Duluth, Lilburn, Norcross, Snellville and Suwanee have either suspended use of the cameras or plan to stop the service altogether. City officials agree the cameras, which monitor and record red-light violations, are working. Violations, accidents and injuries are down. But so are citations, which help pay for the automated ticketing program that can cost some cities more than $400,000 a year to Norcross-based LaserCraft. The drop in citations is due, in part, to a state law that went into effect Dec. 31 that mandated a one-second addition to the yellow phase at all camera intersections. (bold mine - J)
A Texas study predicted at 35-40% reduction in crashes by adding 1 second to yellows.
I'm sure there's plenty more, but I gotta go to work.
Permalink Reply by Jessica on March 5, 2010 at 2:41pm
Do any of you guys regularly drive in the 'burbs? Because people just floor it from earlier out where I'm at. I don't know. I agree with the 1-2 second 'all red', but increasing the yellow times won't necessarily solve the problem.
Permalink Reply by mike wehner on March 5, 2010 at 7:17pm
What does this have to do with bikes? In my opinion you are creating a discussion on the wrong online discussion board. In addition, anything that makes driving more Of a pain in the ass is great! Ride your bike more and you want have to bring this up again or consider the hummer club of Chicago for further support of your reckless driving.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service