Subject:
|
Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:36:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
360 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> The reason for that is a bit convoluted. (I'm citing from a recent issue of
> Car and Driver, which admittedly may have a little bias here but the
> underyling facts check out elsewhere.) At least in the US, most of these
> cameras are put in place by companies under contract to the jurisdictions,
> and these companies apparently are getting paid a cut of each ticket.
See? I've always told you that you can't trust private corporations to
run things!
Seriously though, I'd be interested to hear more about the truncated
yellows. If the cameras are "causing" accidents because people are pushing
the existing envelope more dangerously, then that's obviously the people's
problem. But if, as you indicate, the companies are messing with the
established timing of the lights, then that's quite another matter.
If a driver were rear-ended as a result of the unreasonably shortened
yellows, could that driver (or the rear-ender, for that matter) seek damages
from the camera company if it could be proven that the light's length was at
issue? As I understand it, the length of the yellow is some kind of
function of the speed limit and the overall traffic volume through the area.
With this in mind, it becomes harder to cite a specific "right" length of
the yellow, but it seems to me that the previous length was chosen for a reason.
> Unfortunately that (teaching citizens that their government is rigging the
> law) isn't the worst of it. Because, after all, people need the yellow in
> order to stop, and after the yellow is over, it's GREEN in the other
> direction.
Is that correct? Everywhere, and I mean everywhere, that I've ever walked
or driven has a period of "all red" such that the entire intersection is
stopped, for the express reason of avoiding post-red collisions. If
someone's still in motion after the red, well, they're causing the danger.
That's separate from the short-yellow issue, but I'm curious about these
instant-greens you mention...
> In some jurisdictions the yellow has been cut to 3 seconds!!! Think about that.
Again though, all yellow time is not created equal, and quite a few lights
on my way home from work have yellows of about three seconds, (I'll try to
time a few in the coming days). Is the problem that the yellows have been
shortened, or that they've been shortened inappropriately for the volume and
speed of ambient traffic? And is there accurate, independent documentation
of the "before" and "after" yellow timing?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) Not in the UK. We always have to maintain a safe stopping distance... which makes sense. As I understand it, the length of the yellow is some kind of (...) Normally the focus is on the "intergreen" period - this will be 5-7 seconds for a (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) Google it. You'll be inundated with a full range from "well-reasoned and documented" to "wacky paranoid government-out-to-get-us". But it's fairly obviously an issue, and there's good information out there on it. If the cameras are "causing" (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) Don't get me started on these cameras... they're bad. It's not the rights violation claim (which is false, unless you report the car stolen because it actually was stolen, you're responsible for what people do with your property), it's the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
