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 Joe TV on March 3, 2010 at 3:13pm
Yellow proportional to speed limit? What are you basing that on? If you're going only by the video, 35 to 40 is not the same proportion as 3 to 4.5. Not even close.

The 3 second yellow is the issue - the cameras only the irritant. Why such a short yellow? REVENUE. It's my contention that 1. a longer yellow would reduce "red light runs", creating a safer intersection, and 2. that making decisions on the time of the light based on REVENUE as opposed to SAFETY is WRONG and UNJUST.

There are people out there who have done math and physics on the issue - but I'll spare you, except for this nugget - the commonly used reaction time is 1.5 seconds (.75 sec to process yellow + .75 to put foot on brake) and that would leave 1.5 seconds to brake from 35 to stop in worst case scenario. Is that enough time? I don't think so.

And the assumption that I accelerated into the yellow (or that I'm type A (HA!), or any number of other assumptions made here) is incorrect (despite jokes to the contrary).

I think that's about as clearly as I can state my case.


Michael A said:
The length of the yellow light is proportionate to the speed limit. I just do not get this whole thing. If you saw a squad car at the intersection you would NEVER accelerate into the intersection on yellow. Why complain about a method of law enforcement that does it's job without prejudice?

heather said:
I thought the point of the 3-second yellow was that if you are traveling at or below the speed limit, you should be able to either make it through the light, or safely slow down and stop. If you're speeding, you don't have time to stop OR to get through the light before it changes to red.

David Lieb said:
I will say that several years ago I got a ticket for a red light infraction on Elston.
This was before there were any red light cameras in Chicagoland. The cop specifically mentioned the yellow as being a 3-second yellow. It isn't something they changed for the sake of the red light cameras, it is something put in place long since to trip up the non-locals ;-)
Permalink Reply by Sean W. on March 3, 2010 at 5:42pm
Strongly against cameras. The City states the only valid contest for a camera red light ticket is if you can prove you didn't own the car at the time. I think that's BS, and that having human judgement at the scene of the infraction is necessary to rightfully issue a citation.

I got dinged for one when I got caught behind a large panel truck that I couldn't see beyond. It was snowing, and he was going about 20 mph before accelerating at the intersection (Western and Irving Park). I was following at a 3 second distance, and only after he got out ahead of me could I see the stale yellow. I felt that I would have lost control of my car had I tried to panic stop at that time, so I made eye contact with the driver in opposing left hand turn lane and went through.

I went in for a hearing and argued for the conditions, and for the insufficient (3 second) yellow length per national traffic engineering guidelines for that intersection. My appeal was denied.

I wrote about this at length on my blog (go figure :).

Active Transportation Alliance said:
Official response from Active Trans: Red light cameras only record those that break the law. They do not record everyone who enters an intersection -- just those who enter them illegally.

This is demonstrably false. The video cameras are rolling well before the light turns red, and you can see vehicles driving through the intersection in a fully legal fashion. The video snippet I was forwarded for my infraction showed this clearly.
Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 3, 2010 at 7:24pm
Thanks for the courtesy of acknowledging our happy history of agreement, H3N3 - I echo the sentiment. We might end up agreeing to disagree, but we are still on two different pages.

I hate to belabor a point, but if the yellows are all different lengths for different reasons, how am I to know how long the yellow will be? They might as well all be as ("inappropriately") short as the shortest if we are to always safeguard against tickets. And again, I find the cameras distasteful, but it is the combination with unreasonably short yellows that I find truly unjust.

The arguments made here in favor of red light cams (consistency, efficency, etc) carry no weight when the disagreement isn't with their performance but with their application. To put it another way, the schoolyard bully may be consistent, efficient and without prejudice in doling out beatings to anyone who looks at him funny, but he's still wrong and should be stopped.

If the city has a set of guidelines on yellows, I like to see them. Otherwise, maybe we'd be better off with a consistent yellow that we can live with (longer than 3 seconds). Make all the yellows 4.5 seconds and keep your cameras and I'll shut up.

H3N3 said:
Joe,
the implication being that all Chicago yellows are inappropriately short. Surely they're all different lengths for different situations and locations.
Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on March 3, 2010 at 8:04pm
notoriousDUG said:
The problem is the camera is a still camera and there is no way to differentiate between rolling the light and a legal right turn on red.
So, the camera doesn't show when cars are turning?

Sean W. said:
I got dinged for one when I got caught behind a large panel truck that I couldn't see beyond. It was snowing, and he was going about 20 mph before accelerating at the intersection (Western and Irving Park). I was following at a 3 second distance, and only after he got out ahead of me could I see the stale yellow. I felt that I would have lost control of my car had I tried to panic stop at that time, so I made eye contact with the driver in opposing left hand turn lane and went through.
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.

Sean W. said:
I went in for a hearing and argued for the conditions, and for the insufficient (3 second) yellow length per national traffic engineering guidelines for that intersection. My appeal was denied.
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?

Sean W. said:
This is demonstrably false. The video cameras are rolling well before the light turns red, and you can see vehicles driving through the intersection in a fully legal fashion. The video snippet I was forwarded for my infraction showed this clearly.
Yeah, and you know what else I can see clearly? Almost every time a light turns red, at least two drivers gun it and blatantly run the light when they could have easily stopped. And most of the time, those drivers were already speeding. How do you propose we change this behavior?

Oh yeah, if it's actual video, not just still pictures, then again, doesn't that show whether someone is making a right turn on red versus just blowing straight through? And again, wouldn't you rather have video evidence in court instead of just your word against a cop's? You can feel free to actually answer that question in one of these go-rounds.

Make all the yellows 4.5 seconds and keep your cameras and I'll shut up.
No, you'll still have those same cars running the "orange" lights.

See, while I feel bad for anyone who's gotten a bum rap for running a red light, I feel much worse for people who are killed because drivers are treating this like a f***ing game. One pedestrian is killed by a car every single week in the City of Chicago, on average. If I have to choose whether to err on the side of letting a few people get traffic tickets or letting more people die, it's no contest. If you want to think of it as an extra little driving tax, that's okay by me; whatever it takes to get drivers to slow down and stop driving recklessly and killing so many people.
Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 3, 2010 at 8:38pm
I get the impression some people here feel justified in supporting unfair policies out of some kind of punitive impulse toward motorists.

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

Dan Korn said:
Make all the yellows 4.5 seconds and keep your cameras and I'll shut up.
No, you'll still have those same cars running the "orange" lights.

See, while I feel bad for anyone who's gotten a bum rap for running a red light, I feel much worse for people who are killed because drivers are treating this like a f***ing game. One pedestrian is killed by a car every single week in the City of Chicago, on average. If I have to choose whether to err on the side of letting a few people get traffic tickets or letting more people die, it's no contest. If you want to think of it as an extra little driving tax, that's okay by me; whatever it takes to get drivers to slow down and stop driving recklessly and killing so many people.
Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on March 4, 2010 at 7:39am
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 7:48am
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 8:22am
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 8:24am
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 8:26am
And where do you get the idea that he wasn't?
Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on March 4, 2010 at 8:40am
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 9:01am
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.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service