Longer yellow and all-way red times have been shown to significantly reduce accidents.
Sometimes local governments actually decrease yellow-light timing to catch more red-light runners, a result of the perverse financial incentives that tempt government officials and camera companies.
Studies also show motorists are more likely to hit the brakes hard at camera-enforced intersections, increasing rear-end collisions.
These cameras are a revenue boon for governments across the nation, but their intrusion into daily life is disturbing, and their constitutionality is dubious.
I’ve heard that as well.
So is it a good trade off, to have fewer red light runners but an increase in rear end collisions instead?
Anyone who drives a car, know that when the light turns yellow, you may have a split second to decide whether you can make it through or not. It depends on how far away you are from the intersection, how fast you are going, and also whether or not some idiot is tailgating you. You have a fraction of a second to decide what you are going to do.
In my opinion it is wrong to get punished for making the “wrong” decision in that split second.
I was visiting Chicago a few months ago and noticed that I actually could tell an intersection was patrolled by a camera by how short the yellow was. People get used to a certain length of time with all the non-camera locations, then get nailed by the cameras. It’s dispicable.
I live in Kentucky. Their solution is simple. The light turns red and then, a couple of seconds later, the other direction’s light goes green.