Posted on 02/05/2007 6:19:33 PM PST by JTN
I don't have any empirical evidence to support this, but it seems logical, and seems like it would be more effective.
Instead of handing out more tickets, many of dubious accuracy, for red light running, why not have more enforcement of the type that is much more unimpeachable. At the same time,increase fines to the point that they are really painful. Painful to the point of real deterence. But expend the resources necessary to make sure that the tickets handed out are truly accurate.
Instead of fining 1,000 people $120 using techniques that snag a lot of innocent people, we should be using better methods, i.e. real people, and making the fines $500, or more. Make it hurt.
When a large portion of the public perceives traffic law enforcement's primary objective to be revenue gathering, safety is not being served.
Cities that install red-light cameras usually shorten the yellow light in an effort to make more revenue. In addition, they are usually only ticketing the car and not the driver.
Think about that.
When I run through a yellow, watching it turn red just as I pass beneath the light, and think, "man, I just made it", I look through the rear view mirror and see that four or five cars behind me ran the light as well.
---
I'm curious do you live in a densely populated area? I was idly wondering today if people drive more aggressively when there is more crowding.
That's silly. We all know that folks constantly 'gun' the throttle in order to make the light:
In reality, all a longer yellow light would do would be to encourage more people to blast through intersections at higher average speeds as they have a longer warning to do so, because we can.
It would be deadly.
But back on topic, an electronic 'ticket' is not congruent with established policies of our judicial system.
Houston PING
I think that's what they publicize so they can enable these money makers. Note after the cameras there were still people going over 100+...so it doesn't stop people's behavior...just photographs them in the act and bills them!!
That's silly.
The Red Light Running CrisisA case study of two intersections entitled "The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response" (1980), reported that a 30 percent increase in yellow time yielded substantial safety benefits. "The Results in Table 3 show that the extension of yellow duration reduced the frequency of potential conflicts in all cases studied," (page 27).
The first site studied found an extra second and a fraction of yellow had an immediate and definitive safety pay-off: "An increase of 1.4 seconds or about 30 percent in yellow duration virtually eliminated all potential conflicts at the Maryland site," (page 27, emphasis added).
Similarly, the second site in Georgia realized a 75 percent reduction in potential conflicts following a 32 percent increase in yellow time.
...
This truth is not disputed. Even in literature intended to promote the use of red light one finds the inescapable truth that lengthening the yellow can be the appropriate thing to do if there's a problem. In the study "Red Light Running and Sensible Countermeasures", author Richard Retting agrees that longer yellow times can often substantially reduce accidents and red-light running:
Signals that provide insufficient yellow intervals cause some drivers to run red lights inadvertently. However, many drivers who run red lights are provided adequate opportunity to stop safely but choose instead to proceed through a red light signal…. (Page 1.)Increases in the length of the yellow signal toward values associated with the ITE-proposed recommended practice significantly decreased the chance of red-light running. (Page 2.)
now you're talking! Anything else focuses on automating revenue, not the behavior modification part of it!
the day will come when you will post a required bond account which will confirm and certify driver and vehicle to operate at each start-up. There will be a required transponder in every vehicle which will identify the vehicle to the network. The driver will be required to enter his drivers license and PIN into the transponder in order to recieve start-up authorization. A network of roadway sensors will trigger the transponder to transmit by cell phone type communication (similar to "On-star") to a central database which connects the vehicle and driver identity nationwide to an internet connection. Any infraction will debit the identified transponder account automatically. Serious infractions or driver credit default will disable the operator controls and switch to remote control through a vehicle systems interlink, steering the vehicle safely to the arrest and control point and the seat belt will lock the driver in the vehicle like full body handcuffs until the police arrive
The government will also know where every vehicle is at all times by GPS satellite ID built into the transponder.
thereby making red light cameras obsolete and a part of distant history, freeing police from the taxation duties of traffic enforcement, and allowing them to focus on other enforcement and revenue collection priorities
Guess the locals are missing the nonstop express they used to have.
---
:)
My parents still live in the small Southern town I grew up in. My mom defines "rush hour" as maybe having to tap the brake while going down the main drag.
If they send you picture of your traffic violation in the mail send them a picture of your check.
The future is thaat your vehicle will be transporting you wihtout any input from you except for your desired destination.
The future also includes bad spelling. ;-)
Not to mention nobody being in the intersection ILLEGALLY i.e running the red from the other direction. That's the factor that to me makes "timing" seem a fairly insane practice.
Many, many moons ago, I lived in Texas. When I went back to New Jersey, I started getting all kinds of threatening letters for failure to appear, driving without a license, didn't pay a speeding fine, etc. I ignored them since I was a thousand miles away at the time and they were obviously wrong.
Years later I learned that my dear brother had swiped my mother's car, got caught speeding, and told the cop that he was me. He was not old enough to have a license. He then threw the tickets in the trash. I guess they realized that they had no basis to proceed, other than a cop who wrote tickets to a person claiming to be me. The notices stopped after a while.
You don't automatically get the right of way when your light turns green. If other traffic is in the intersection at the time, you must yield right of way to it.
Trying to "time" a green light is very dangerous unless you can see that there is no way any opposing traffic could enter the intersection before you get there. While it's hard to define exactly what would constitute illegal "timing" of a light, I would suggest that it is dangerous for a motorist to approach an intersection which is showing a red signal or contains opposing traffic in such fashion that the motorist would be unable to stop before it.
It's not being done for safety's sake, which they claim. It brings in beaucoup bucks for the city (Scottsdale).
And it's unconstitutional...like that ever stopped them, though.
If no motorist who approached a red traffic signal would enter the intersection before confirming that the way was clear, a motorist running a red light would have to be more than two whole seconds late to cause an accident. By contrast, a motorist "timing" a (hopefully) green light may have no margin for error. Indeed, if the opposing traffic fails to clear the intersection for whatever reason (e.g. backed-up traffic, perceived debris in road, etc.), the motorist who tried to "time" the green light may cause an accident even if he judges the signal's timing correctly.
Some other reasons:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.