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: 497

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sean W. on March 4, 2010 at 12:24pm
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 7:34am
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 8:03am
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 9:41am
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 2:17pm
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.
Permalink Reply by heather s on March 5, 2010 at 3:16pm
Well... it's sort of relevant to bikes. People on bikes are more vulnerable when there are drivers speeding up through yellow or running red lights--both of which we know happen all the time-- so we have some interest in intersection safety measures.

mike wehner said:
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.
Permalink Reply by burden on March 5, 2010 at 9:20pm
It is always important to stand up for the downtrodden motorist and speak out against the many injustices that they suffer.


mike wehner said:
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.
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on March 6, 2010 at 3:58am
1. Shame on any of us for driving to work, for work, or at times a bike is not practical for us. Bad us.

2. Things like the red light cameras affect how drivers act ont he road which effects us directly because their changes in behavior can endanger cyclists.

3. Making driving more of a pain is not great; many people have to drive because a bike or P/T is not practical for them and making it harder for them is only going to make them more frustrated, edgy and aggressive; you are being selfish and short sighted at best and outright cruel and vindictive at worst...

4. Having an adversarial attitude towards cars hurts more then it helps when it comes to making life on the roads easier. I drive every weekday because there is no practical way for me not to; am I a bad person? Do you want to make my life harder?



mike wehner said:
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.
Permalink Reply by burden on March 6, 2010 at 9:52am
I don't think you're deserving of shame, DUG. As it happens, I think there are some thought-provoking arguments against photo-enforcement in this thread. But there's also a troubling subtext which compromises my ability to buy what you're selling.
Permalink Reply by burden on March 6, 2010 at 10:02am
Let's talk about how the yellow signal duration is the injustice worth our anger, when it comes to the following intersection:


This car is stopped. There's no stop line painted here, so I suppose parking across the crosswalk will have to do. All of the cars behind this car will also stop on top of the crosswalk.


Ah, finally, a break in traffic.


Yum. This is a place that somebody really cares about, you know?


Where's the pedestrian signal? Oh, there isn't one. And I can't see the light controlling cross traffic, so I don't know if approaching cars (exiting an interstate, by the way) are going to stop or not. Nor can I see the light that's behind me here, controlling the left turn across my path on the other side of the island. So I suppose I'll just have to sort of guess that it's safe to walk out into the expressway ramp.

I wonder if the yellow interval here is 3.8 seconds or 4.4 seconds?


The view of what we're crossing.


The view from the other side, looking back at what we've crossed. Note the hidden crosswalk to the right, the lack of a pedestrian signal, the high-speed turn lane, and the signalled right turn that a pedestrian couldn't see if they were crossing up ahead (and that many drivers ignore anyway, failing to stop when it's red), leaving them at the mercy of a traffic engineer's decision to make sure that drivers never feel "frustrated, edgy and aggressive," which is of course the most important issue here.


The regard for my experience here is humbling. I really feel like a first-class participant, and not like I've been completely forgotten about.

All of these design decisions have something in common, and are entirely on-topic for people who are outraged by photo-enforcement and the injustice of "making driving more of a pain."

By the way, this ain't the 'burbs. We're just four or five miles from the Loop here, on Damen, one of the few legit connections across this great divide, between two densely populated and pedestrian-rich neighborhoods. A third of households in this area do not have a car.

(In the interest of full disclosure, that includes my household. In the interest of more disclosure than is probably necessary, I was on my way to Target to buy some underpants. This is the route people in my neighborhood take to get to Target to buy underpants, when they don't have a car. Of course, most of the people you'll meet walking here aren't nerds with cameras, so why should we care?)
Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 6, 2010 at 1:52pm
burden said:
All of these design decisions have something in common, and are entirely on-topic for people who are outraged by photo-enforcement and the injustice of "making driving more of a pain."

Burden, I feel you on the pedestrian issue, but the reason I brought up this topic in this forum in the first place is because of the ATA's involvement (in support of the wrong side, in my opinion). And for me it isn't a cars vs. bikes zero sum game. It's a right vs. wrong/honest vs. dishonest/liberty and justice for all kinda thing.
Permalink Reply by burden on March 7, 2010 at 5:42am
Joe TV said:
Burden, I feel you on the pedestrian issue, but the reason I brought up this topic in this forum in the first place is because of the ATA's involvement (in support of the wrong side, in my opinion). And for me it isn't a cars vs. bikes zero sum game. It's a right vs. wrong/honest vs. dishonest/liberty and justice for all kinda thing.

Okay, but...



This style of right-turn treatment, with a dedicated lane and signal, and a fat, speed-enhancing radius, exists in part because it helps reduce the rear-end collisions that happen when cars are forced to stop or slow down before turning.

I'm quite sure that we could find some studies that show that this type of right turn is safer for drivers than other types of right turns. And I'm sure that we could find drivers who felt frustrated by slower corner designs, or who were in a wreck because someone stopped suddenly to make a turn.

Sound familiar?

That's the context in which I'm listening to your arguments -- a context in which a safety feature for drivers is also a crazy deathtrap for pedestrians, and in which a million small concessions to speed culminate in a wasteland like the intersection of Damen and I-55.

So it's not that I think you're inherently wrong, and it's not that I have any particular trust in the City to not be shady about stuff like this. It's that I'm unconvinced that a program of escalating accommodations for high-speed road culture has worked out very well for us so far. As the intersection above illustrates, safety interests are, in fact, often in competition as long as we're inclined to measure safety only for a given minimum roadway speed.

In turn, I think enforcement cameras are a red herring. Even if you're right that they're oppressive and graft-ridden, the best way to challenge them is not to design further accommodations for speedy, "frustration"-free motoring. That is, engineering fixes that facilitate drivers' apparently natural refusal to approach intersections with caution are often part of the problem, not the solution. Likewise, our belief that drivers should never feel any kind of frustration or experience any challenges has led to places that are legitimately hostile and dehumanizing for everybody else -- often especially for people who already have an unfair portion of injustice on their plates, and probably don't have much of a voice on this or any other matter.

If the discussion weren't framed in those terms, I'd be far more inclined to pay attention to the admittedly weird implications of automated picture-cops, but until then, I think we're just getting distracted from the real issues.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service