Subject:
|
Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:10:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
357 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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" 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?
Probably not. Drivers who allow the full, recommended 2+ seconds of space
between vehicles pretty much have to be inattentive to avoid hitting the car
in front of them, even if it slams on the brakes. That's why most
jurisdictions assign fault to the rear-ender by default.
Practically, of course, 2 seconds of lead time doesn't happen because there
are more than just 2 cars on the road, and the guy in the next lane will cut
into that nice wide space you're leaving him, in an effort to get to work 15
seconds earlier. (My bias is showing, I freely admit.)
> 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.
It's intended to be. According to several of the articles I looked at, that
recommended time is being trimmed in the name of profit.
> > 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...
Possibly not instant, but in my experience, the all-directions-red is a very
short duration; less than a second. Most red-light accidents are 2 people -
1 person running the red and 1 person jumping the green (or timing their
pace to hit the intersection as the light changes).
> > 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?
Almost certainly. Accurate and copious statistics are the lifeblood of
traffic controllers, the more the better.
There are 2 red-light cameras in my community, and they've been in place for
a long time, with no visible shortening of red. This is probably because
they're high-speed intersections in the direction the camera is set, and
there is both a long-duration yellow and yellow flashing lights ahead of the
intersection (of the "if you see these flashing lights, the light will be
red before you reach it" variety). People run it anyway, often speeding up
when they see the flashing yellows. :/ I don't know what the accident rate
at those intersections is, but I've never seen one personally, nor evidence
thereof, and I go through one of them nearly every day.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: red light cameras CAUSE accidents
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
