Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Red light cameras are becoming more and more popular all over the country, which is appalling enough. Here's another reason to hate them: Some cities are now shortening the yellow portion of the light in order to boost revenue.
Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection.Some local governments have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.
The article lists six cities that have been caught doing this -- Chattanooga, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Union City, California. Now remember, red light cameras are justified because they allegedly make driving safer and reduce accidents by making drivers follow the letter of the law. AlterNet points out the real reason:
"With all of the stories we hear on a daily basis, there is little doubt that the desire for ticket revenue trumps safety concerns," Gary Biller, executive director of the National Motorists Association told AlterNet. "A quick current example is California's governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who a few weeks ago proposed state budget including a proposal to add speed sensors to 500 existing red-light cameras. The reason? Safety wasn't mentioned, but an expected additional annual revenue of $338 million was." ...Roughly multiply that revenue by 50 states, and you quickly get an idea why red-light cameras designed by companies like Arizona's Redlfex Group and American Traffic Solutions (ATS) are an increasingly attractive crutch for America's cash-strapped cities. But they're unsafe short-cuts, because they haven't necessarily proven very effective at anything other than generating ticket revenue -- and accidents, lots of accidents. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that red-light cameras can cause more accidents, not less.
They're not particularly good at generating legitimate tickets either: Illegal camera set-ups at intersections in Seattle are issuing invalid citations, around 80 percent of red-light violations in Los Angeles are comparatively safe rolling right turns, and so on. Meanwhile, 15 states have elected to prohibit red-light cameras, and more are surely to come as motorists learn that some American cities have been shortening yellow lights for deadly profit, as countries like Italy quickly follow suit.
"While several cities have been caught shortening yellow lights to increase revenue from red-light tickets," said Biller, "I think the larger issue today is that the duration of so many yellow lights has never been adequately set for optimal safety results. An increase of approximately one second can reduce the frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent."
Yes, the government is screwing you again.
Politics
Comments
Come on, Ed, we all know that red light cameras are strictly there for our public safety. And what could be safe than everyone staying home because they're too broke to afford gas?
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 10, 2010 9:16 AM
I think it's a terrific idea to shorten yellows. More accidents means more work for body shops, more broken bones for hospitals to mend, more insurance adjusters employed, additional business for cash-strapped funeral parlors. It's a boon to the economy, a shot in the arm in these tough economic times. What's not to like about more car accidents? Seems to me that everyone wins. Where's the downside?
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | March 10, 2010 9:23 AM
Well...darn. I had felt fairly sanguine about red-light cameras until I read this.
Posted by: Merle | March 10, 2010 9:26 AM
Stories like this really get me pissed. There are good, valid studies, done by traffic engineers that show what an optimal speed is for a given area, based on safety, traffic flow, economic travel, etc. There is a given, easily calculated length for a yellow light based on those optimal speeds.
The fact that politicians like to fuck with this stuff and usually wind up with less safe conditions pisses me right the fuck off. As an avid user of 'alternate' transportation (bicycle and motorcycle), this poses an even greater threat to me and those like me.
Of course, the politician's only answer to anything like this is to reduce the speed limit, regardless of the many studies that show, in some cases, increasing the speed limit in a given area will have a more positive impact on safety.
I've got nothing against red light cameras in principle, and some areas really need it, IMO. But doing something like shortening the yellow lights is just a speed trap. I wonder if one did a study or average car braking, based on dry conditions and doing the speed limit, if you could show that most cars would not be able to stop in the given yellow time, if one could sue a city for entrapment?
Posted by: FastLane | March 10, 2010 9:30 AM
It seems to me the problem is more one of human behavior than the cameras per se.
I clicked through some of the study citations. Here's the thing: the premise is that people get into more accidents because they slam on the brakes to avoid running a red light. But that means to me that you have a more basic problem as to why the guy was driving so fast he couldn't stop for a red light in the first place. Running the light is just as dangerous -- certainly here in NYC (and I live right near a major intersection where there is no shortage of screeching sounds, swearing and associated stuff) running a red light is a good way to kill pedestrians and we don't even allow right turns on a red in the five boroughs. (If we did the traffic would come to a grinding halt).
Also, let's face it, if the technology exists to automate some of the ticket citations, taking the cop out of the picture, there is a point at which I am all for that because you can't bribe a machine and whatever issues I have with the red light cameras, I know they aren't going to target me for any other reason than the supposed violation.
Now, all that said, I might propose a different solution: you know those speed signs that tell you how fast you are going? A variation on that seems perfectly workable. Instead of automatically generating a ticket for the red light, generate one for speeding. (You could design a multiple camera/exposure system so that you can't defeat it by going faster). That seems to me a better use of this kind of technology.
Now, I might be biased by the kind of place I live in. But I see no reason for a car to be going at 60 mph in the 4-block stretch between West 70th and west 66th street. (There are lights at each street intersection, BTW, and the optimal speed for the "green wave" is around 25-30 mph at the most. 30 mph will get you about 20 blocks in 2 minutes in Manhattan).
And maybe I am biased as one who does not, as a rule, really enjoy driving much. I used to. Not anymore. So I have less sympathy for drivers generally than I did in my 20s.
Posted by: Jesse | March 10, 2010 9:32 AM
Just so people understand, BTW, I do think shortening the yellow light is kind of silly. Its pretty short here in NYC as it is, at about 2 seconds. How much could you shorten it?
Posted by: Jesse | March 10, 2010 9:35 AM
Hmm.
Posted by: MartinM | March 10, 2010 9:47 AM
@jesse
NYC is hardly representative of the vast majority of the country. It has unique problems.
Saying that the camera's are being sold as increasing public safety. Not revenue generation. Whatever your opinion of people "going to fast" they don't improve safety. They will not change the behavior of drivers. And even if there is a short dip at accidents at an intersection - studies have shown that over a long term - accident rates return to what they were before.
And we've know that local governments have been tweaking timers for years. And they all started in Texas and Arizona.
Posted by: yoshi | March 10, 2010 9:49 AM
They've recently been implemented in KCMO, and I can't for the life of me understand what purpose they're supposed to serve. Intimidation? Deterrence? Irritation?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 10, 2010 9:50 AM
@Sadie
While I recognize that a major/primary function is revenue generation my informal analysis driving around maryland every day is that at intersections with a sign noting a red light camera, people don't run the red light. At the intersections without cameras (or with cameras without signs) people run red lights. I don't mean that they see a yellow and keep going and it turns red while they're in the intersection. I mean, I go through it after its turned yellow and look in my mirror and 10 more cars go through after me :p
Posted by: JohnV | March 10, 2010 9:59 AM
Here in AZ they have three pieces of idiocy in addition to the "Red Light" cameras.
First, they have pre-set speed zones with cameras for enforcement. I suppose these would work since everyone knows where they are and (hypothetically) they slow down for those areas. In reality though, it is well known that the sensors on those camera/radar combinations are notoriously unreliable so they don't give out tickets unless the motorist is doing at least 10 mph over the legal limit. The entire purpose of the damn thing went right out the window as soon as everyone was told, "go ahead, speed 9 miles over the limit, you'll be fine."
Second, they have mobile radar/camera combination vehicles. What makes these things so incredibly stupid is, in addition to the 10mph stupidity, is the fact that they set up two warning signs prior to the vehicle and (apparently) notify the traffic reporters so they let everyone know where the "revenue enhancement zones" are.
Third, and I don't know if you guys see this where you are, but locals have taken to scratching/scrubbing/modifying their plates so the cameras can't read them. Over the last two or three years it seems like two out of every three license plates has been modified so they are difficult to read from more than 10 feet away. Why the hell the police don't cite them for tampering with their vehicle registration is entirely beyond me.
The whole combination is idiotic. Unsafe motorists basically know that they can get away with doing up to 9 mph over the limit, can modify their plates, and are informed where the cameras are so they can speed and drive recklessly to their heart's content as long as the avoid those locations. This is on top of the fact that the locals are crappy drivers to begin with, some of the worst I've ever seen in my life. Back in the Midwest my wife and I used to say "Oh shit, a guy from Illinois, avoid him..." Now we look for Illinois plates because we know they wont be as bad as the idiots with AZ plates.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2010 9:59 AM
As Mr. Fastlane @ #4 states, there is a formula based on approach speed and assumed braking deceleration (-10 ft/sec^2) that gives the optimum length of the yellow change interval and, if the speed is high enough, the length of the all red clearance interval (the addition of an all red clearance interval is required for higher speed approaches because a yellow interval that is too long is as dangerous as one that is too short), so as to provide dilemma zone protection, that is published in the MUTCD. I would be willing to bet that, if the settings are too short, based on that formula, that a ticketed driver could beat the charge in court.
However, provided that the settings are according to Hoyle, I would have to strongly disagree with Mr. Brayton because red light running is a serous problem almost everywhere in the US. Since police officers are stretched thin on the ground, the red light cameras, provided that their presence is made know, provide a deterrence to this practice.
Relative to the rolling right turn on red, which is similar to the rolling stop at a stop sign (called a California stop by many traffic engineers because of the prevalence of the practice there), the law is very clear in most jurisdictions. Thou shalt not enter an intersection after the light turns red. Thus, a right turn on red is treated as if it were a stop sign, i.e. the vehicle must come to a complete stop before proceeding.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 10:07 AM
In Maryland, over the past couple of years, high school kids took to pasting over their license plates with photos of other people's license plates (probably teachers and school administrators) and deliberately running those lights. I suggest that if people were take photos of their mayor's and other officials' license plates and then pasting the printed paper license plates over their plates and running those lights, they might be able to make a pretty strong statement.
Posted by: mikey.duhhh | March 10, 2010 10:27 AM
I don't understand the point of shortening yellow lights just to increase revenue. It's unsafe, and basically the equivalent of a state-wide gas tax, so why not just do that? It has the same net effect, except instead of randomly screwing you once a year for $400 or whatever, you just pay an extra $2-$3 when you fill up your tank - or you go over a state and do it there, if you live close enough to a border and can be bothered (which is not often for most people)
Posted by: Tacroy | March 10, 2010 10:27 AM
The best thing I can say about the red-light cameras is that they record the video of every wreck as admissible evidence. Which would have been damned handy when I was T-boned while proceeding through an intersection on green and the cop cited me instead of the red-light runner.
I actually beat that one, but it would have been nice to have a video.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 10, 2010 10:35 AM
Jesse:
Tell that to the thousands of people that received tickets for making a legal right turn on red.
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | March 10, 2010 10:38 AM
Well, it looks like, for once, the layabouts and idiots in the Georgia General Assembly got ahead of an issue. Last year a law went into effect that mandated a 1-second extension of the yellow light at all intersections where red light cameras are being used. The consequence has been that some cities are removing their red light cameras all together and are admitting that they're doing it because the law prevents them from collecting enough revenue to even continue to pay the vendor for the service, let alone add anything to city coffers.
Posted by: MissyAnne Thrope | March 10, 2010 10:43 AM
To be perfectly blunt, I don't see what the problem is with red light cameras, per se. Over here, in the UK, it is widely taught to drivers that, if you see the light's on amber, that means 'stop, if you can do so safely'. Despite this, though, many drivers treat it as if it means 'stomp the accelerator to try to make it before it turns red'. Frankly, if this action means they blow through when the light's on red, then they deserve to get a ticket.
However, I do see the problem with red light cameras combined with mucking around with traffic lights for any reason apart from safety. Shortening the yellow light means that drivers may not have enough time/distance to either stop safely or proceed calmly through before it turns red, so it does actually turn it into, effectively, 'stomp the accelerator to try to make it before it turns red', in order to try to avoid a ticket, and this would certainly be more prone to accidents. Either that, or they basically do an emergency stop to try to avoid a ticket, which could easily make the vehicle behind slam into them, causing an accident.
If what FastLane @#4 and SLC @#12 say is correct, and there is a formula for working out the safest length of time to have the light stay on yellow for, then that formula should be used, and no alteration to that should be made at all, especially simply in the interests of 'generating revenue'.
Posted by: Zmidponk | March 10, 2010 10:44 AM
The mention of the all red safety clearance interval, that was particularly bad in Az. I lived in Tucson about half my life (and would like to move back there) and for a city that likes to claim so much to be bicycle friendly, the politicians seem to forget all about bicycles when doing these things.
Many surface roads are 10 lanes wide (3 lanes each direction, plus right turn lanes and a left turn lane). The clearance interval is much too short for even a relatively fast bicyclist like me. There were many times where I entered an intersection just as the light turned yellow, and even at full speed, could not clear before the cross traffic light turned green. Luckily, there's usually enough cars running the light that I was 'shielded'. =P
Hypothetically, bicycles are supposed to stop, push the pedestrian button, and walk across the intersection, but that involves then waiting out two cycles of the light at the larger intersections (the crosswalks are timed to stop a pedestrain at the median). If I wanted to wait that long, I would have walked in the first place.....
Posted by: FastLane | March 10, 2010 10:45 AM
The same problem occurs anytime law enforcement gets a big chunk of funding from penalities. It provides an incentive, and people are just following the incentives.
There are other proven solutions, I read a study that showed not only increasing the yellows, but adding one or two seconds where it's red in all 4 directions during the "switch" from one green to the other also increases safety. Another thing is using larger lights, and finally the countdown timers have been proven to increase safety.
But those don't bring revenue to the cities, and actually cost money to install.
I'd support red light cameras if and only if the other infrastructure changes were made. But you know, if you support using science to increase safety, people just start yelling that you want to speed and break the law, and refuse to listen or even read studies.
Posted by: plutosdad | March 10, 2010 10:57 AM
So it seems simple enough -- measures at red-light camera sites that are designed to give motorists a better chance of remaining within the law -- i.e. extending the time at yellow and also putting up warning signs:
Accidents are expensive, particularly those with fatalities and serious injuries. That should provide more than enough financial incentive design intersections that effectively encourage safer driving habits.
I am not against red light cameras in principle, but I agree that they should not be used as a revenue generating device.
Posted by: tacitus | March 10, 2010 11:25 AM
@Johnny Clamboat -- that is why is said supposed violation. The point is that however stupid the system is, it's at least consistent and you won't have a red light camera pulling a DWB (Driving While Black) on somebody.
@yoshi -- that's why i proposed what I did, and while I understand that NYC is not terrifically representative, the human-behavior issues are similar. It irritates me to no end when I see people blasting through at insane speeds to go the 200 feet to the next light. THe laws of physics dictate that the faster you go, the harder it is to stop and the longer it will take. And is the 2 seconds you save worth it?
I liked the idea of increasing the delay between the "switch" of an intersection. They do that a lot here to allow people to cross the bigger avenues without having to contend with vehicles making the turns. That doesn't strike me as terrifically different anywhere else (except maybe the number of people per sq mile being smaller) -- i mean, pedestrians are still pedestrians and the guy at the intersection can wait the extra 10 seconds.
Posted by: Jesse | March 10, 2010 11:31 AM
What FastLane said about speed limits *and*...
Many localities work the formulas for safest speed limits on a particular stretch of road and then set them lower based on number of driveways already calculated into the formula. Many will also reduce speed limits based on neighborhood pressure.
The problem with artificially low speed limits is they have little effect on speed driven but have a definite impact on shortening the yellow light time to what is unsafe for actual speeds driven. This endangers peoples lives and make our roads dangerous for all. Further reducing yellow light times is a harm to the public *and* I hope to see municipalities practicing this sued to the point they will stop risking public safety for a few short term bucks. Even then how much will the budget really advance when they'll need more first responders?
Setting the safest speed limits and corresponding yellow light lengths will save lives, decrease pressure on our infrastructure and be an example of a win-win with good governance serving people and saving money.
Posted by: Bryony Vaughn | March 10, 2010 11:35 AM
That's simple, by shortening the yellow, if they even do so openly, they can claim that they're being tough on speeders, making the roads safer, etc. On the other hand if they raise a tax, any tax, that can lead to them not being reelected in at least 20 states in the country right now. Here in AZ we're generally 48th-50th in educational funding (depending on the measure), we're 42nd in total tax burden (a little higher or lower depending on the measure) and we have a $2 billion dollar deficit. The logical solution, given that they've cut like crazy already to try to balance the budget and are in danger of not receiving federal stimulus because they've cut education so much already, is to raise the property tax which not only impacts people in relationship to how much they can afford, it also hits area where the state was in the mid 30s range prior to the explosion in property value that the state hasn't managed to keep up with.
Instead they have a voter referendum asking to authorize a 1% increase in sales tax. The claim is that AZ's sales tax is only 5.6% so that wouldn't be a major impact. Of course that leaves out the fact that both counties and local communities tack on their own sales tax and because of this, the lowest sales tax in the state is actually 7.8% (with numerous communities well over 9%).
Arizona is a perfect example of what the idiotic tax cut philosophy of the GOP ultimately leads to. Almost no services, generally poor quality education, massive budget deficits, burdensome sales tax that lowers the quality of life for the poorest at the same time the state lags behind in many of the income indicators.
Screwing with the yellow lights seems like a brilliant idea compared to trying to raise a tax, ANY tax in this state.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2010 11:37 AM
One more thing: taping a picture of another car's plate won't be too effective because in most states your car's make and model and even the color are on the registration, so unless you drive the same kind of car it wouldn't pass muster.
All you'd have to do is take the citation to the courthouse, ask if the photo matches your car, and be done. A pain in the ass, but this also assumes the computer won't match the data at all with the registration. A lot of the time they do, and in fact if it didn't match they'd be alerting the GRAT squad. (That's how many people in New York state got caught, they'd get a traffic stop, the car wouldn't match the reg, and then you find a stolen car. Such plates will survive an eyeballing, but that's about it).
Posted by: Jesse | March 10, 2010 11:37 AM
Two words: Traffic circles
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 10, 2010 12:11 PM
I do not stand behind shortening yellow lights.
Posted by: Chris Lee | March 10, 2010 12:37 PM
Ed- you should check your facts before you re-post a story from Alternet, which I wouldn't even consider a journalistic outlet or medium. They quote the National Motorist Association as the only source for their story- these are the same people who believe in "driver freedom" you know, such as no seat belt or DUI laws. AAA, which most would regard as a highly credible expert on road and traffic safety has even accused the NMA of exaggerating the extent of the yellow light problem in order to whip up public hysteria. “AAA does not believe the problem is widespread,” says Justin McNaull, the organization’s director of state relations. He says the problems disclosed by the NMA were in isolated programs run by vendors motivated by profit.
So- when the story gets a little more balanced- it seems like it probably isn't a problem, but rather an effort by NMA to create a groundswell of anti-red light camera support.
Posted by: Whitney | March 10, 2010 12:51 PM
Shortening the yellows is a dangerous practice and highly illegal. This is why we need standardized guide lines from every legislation. How long yellows should be, what is the legal proceedings for cameras, etc. I want the cameras around because they DO increase safety when used right.
Posted by: Fred D | March 10, 2010 1:03 PM
I'd like to agree with you on this one Ed, but I'm in insurance. We very recently had a really bad three car accident that involved a yellow turning to red light and no red light cameras, or shortened yellows. I know that intersection and it's not even a particularly dangerous one.
Worst thing is? It's only the most recent, not a sole incident.
So yeah, gonna go with the problem being the behaviour of drivers, not the cameras/lights. When exactly did they stop teaching that yellow meant "prepare to stop" anyway?
Posted by: Kate from Iowa | March 10, 2010 1:06 PM
If a municipality shortens a yellow light to the point that acidents increase, aren't they liable because they reduced the safety?
A couple of milion dollar payouts and this practice would stop.
Posted by: Chilidog | March 10, 2010 1:45 PM
They never did. My Driver's Ed instructor was very explicit about that. The problem is that every other driver these people know is telling them the opposite message, and the right message gets drowned out.
Posted by: infophile | March 10, 2010 1:50 PM
Re The Gregarious Misanthrope
Mr. Misanthrope should be aware that traffic circles are now called roundabouts, which designation was borrowed from the British.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 1:52 PM
I don't think anyone should be messing with yellow light times. However, I think these cameras provide an efficient service that help change driver behavior for the better. The end result is safer street for motorist and pedestrians alike.
Posted by: JT Fermottybot | March 10, 2010 2:03 PM
You have got to be kidding. I don't think there is one documented case where a municipality has lowered the yellow light times in the hopes of enhancing revenue.
you need to back up your statement with some cold hard facts
Posted by: cubuffalo | March 10, 2010 2:13 PM
If there are indeed cities who have been shortening their yellow lights without notifying its citizens....well shame on them. However, I have read many stories where people have said the lights are shorter and media outlets have proven them wrong. Regardless, red light camera's are in place for safety. whether you believe this or not, it does make a driver conscious of what they are doing behind the wheel and that is never a bad thing.
Posted by: Peter Callahan | March 10, 2010 2:13 PM
SLC: Mr. Misanthrope should be aware that traffic circles are now called roundabouts, which designation was borrowed from the British.
They are called 'rotaries' and they are such fun! When I got my first car and started commuting to work (on a route which involved three of them on moderately congested roads) Massachusetts thrashed around a few times on the right-of-way rules for them - the default having been that traffic on the right has the right-of-way. (Think about that for a moment, keeping in mind the counter-clockwise direction of traffic.) Hilarity ensued.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | March 10, 2010 2:41 PM
The simple solution would be to not drive through a red light, then you wouldn't be personally affected. Automated cameras can be bit of a problem as people might be able to just refuse to admit to driving the care, in which case it could he hard to charge them
Posted by: G.Shelley | March 10, 2010 3:02 PM
It's ridiculous to quote the NMA...aren't they also against seat belts? Red light cameras are there to deter people form breaking the law and putting others in danger. The whole yellow light argument is a red herring by people who get busted blowing through intersections.
Posted by: thecolonel | March 10, 2010 3:07 PM
tsk tsk tsk. I am already a mess driving through intersections. The cameras have made me an unsafe driver.
Lou
Posted by: Lou Ettore | March 10, 2010 3:11 PM
Mr. Brayton, if you are interested in science, please don't get taken in by the unsubstantiated statements by National Motorists Assoc. reps. Wouldn't you like to hear what city officials from Chattanooga, Dallas, Springfield, Lubbock, Nashville, and Union City to say before accepting the word of Mr. Biller? I sure would. Barnet Fagel, another NMA rep, recently said that Chicago was shortening yellow lights but when FOX News investigated with their own study, they found that no lights were shortened. And anyway, municipalities follow state and federal guidelines in setting yellow light length based on the speed limit at the intersection. Any person caught shortening yellow lights below the standard should be prosecuted.
As for anti-red-light camera group NMA, they are also opposed to use of seat belt laws, driving while using cell phones laws, driving while texting laws, and motorcycle helmet laws. Hardly a group that has public safety as one of its interests.
Posted by: WilliamC | March 10, 2010 3:38 PM
Well, when I am evaluating the credibility of some random group and Fox News, the random group wins, so perhaps you have a non-Fox cite about the unreliability of NMA, William?
Posted by: Michael Ralston | March 10, 2010 4:35 PM
"... and accidents"
No. Not accidents. Crashes. Crashes caused by incompetent drivers following too close. An accident is something that is unavoidable, and where the automobile is concerned, pretty damned rare.
Posted by: GetOffMyTail,Jerk! | March 10, 2010 4:39 PM
Mr. Misanthrope should be aware that traffic circles are now called roundabouts, which designation was borrowed from the British.
I, personally, make a distinction between a "roundabout," where incoming traffic yields to traffic already in the circle -- the SENSIBLE way, like it's done in Europe and New England; and "traffic circles," like the ones in DC, where senseless and idiotic signals make the whole thing a dangerous mess.
Seriously, have you been to Dupont Circle? Traffic entering the circle gets a flashing-yellow light, which means "go, but you still don't have the right-of-way because traffic in the circle is clear to go at the same time." Oh, and Dupont has an inner and an outer circle. Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a proper roundabout.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 10, 2010 5:19 PM
SLC, #33: Mr. Misanthrope should be aware that traffic circles are now called roundabouts, which designation was borrowed from the British.
I've always liked the term in colloquial Swahili (recall that they drive on the left side in many former British colonies and that Swahili has acquired many Anglicisms):
kiplefti (pronounced keep-leftie)
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 10, 2010 5:24 PM
I'm against seat belt and helmet laws, but I always wear a helmet and seatbelt. You are only posing a danger to yourself in that situation. I'm all for cell phone/texting bans, as you are a hazard to everyone around you, and the more people who are talking on a phone or texting in an area, the greater the liklihood of an accident. (I would imagine the odds increase geometrically, given the slower reaction times.)
As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with red light cameras, or automated speed radar enforcement. It's when a government/politician changes the traffic signals or speed limits with the intent to increase revenue, and not for actual reasons of safety.
Then again, I think the US has far too lax laws when it comes to getting and keeping a vehicle and/or license. Europe, Canada, and most other first world countries have far more rigorous systems, and stricter enforcement.
And citig Faux news isn't really going to give any credibility.....
Posted by: FastLane | March 10, 2010 5:50 PM
Re Uncle Glenny @ #37
Thkey are called roteries in Massachusetts. They are called roundabouts every where else. I am quite familiar with the roteries in the Boston area, having spent part of a summer there at a Brandais Summer Institute a million years ago. They are something else.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 6:21 PM
As a long-time reader of Car and Driver magazine, I remembered that this issue was first raised in an editorial by Patrick Bedard years ago - eight years ago, in fact:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/02q1/red-light_cameras_and_the_secret_gotcha!_line-column
Posted by: V. infernalis | March 10, 2010 7:55 PM
Sheesh. About 10 years ago San Diego was nailed by defense lawyers for shortening yellow lights; hundreds and hundreds of citations were dismissed and the city ended up shutting down the red light camera business for several years while the dust settled.
Posted by: hibob | March 10, 2010 9:22 PM
Not true, not true. They do not shorten yellow lights and this isn't a money issue, it's a SAFETY issue. These cameras are proven to decrease accidents and promote safety awareness. I feel better knowing these cameras are on our streets, making them safer.
Posted by: Nan Smith | March 10, 2010 9:43 PM
Whoa, who are all these Red Light Camera advocates? Lots of names I don't remember seeing here. All hitting the same talking points. Shills? I don't know, but they sure are passionate about the topic.
FastLane@46
Posted by: Don't Panic | March 10, 2010 10:15 PM
Blockquote fail! Duh.
Posted by: Don't Panic | March 10, 2010 10:17 PM
"Yellow" signals are calculated based on the speed limits of the cross streets. If it's too short, challenging the length of a yellow light isn't any trouble at all. Just ask for the math. Otherwise, pay attention to where you're driving. 1/3 of Americans don't drive, and are disproportionately killed by the 2/3 that do.
Rolling rights on reds in Seattle = running a red light. Seriously, read the rules. Washington regulations require a full stop at red lights (before the crosswalk... see: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055 ) then allow proceeding with caution per right-on-red.
"Relatively safe" = bullshit. The incentive is in the "full stop prior to crosswalk" part. As in, don't squish the little old lady crossing the street from your right while you're rolling the red with your head swiveled over your left shoulder. Think I'm nuts? Try just one right on red, looking to the right while you're approaching and accelerating out of the intersection. If you think that's creepy, try walking through a crosswalk. What does this mean for your kids, when they're not old enough to drive? Or yourself, when you're too old to drive? Private chauffeurs?
Posted by: John | March 10, 2010 11:01 PM
Roundabouts (traffic circles) have not been a successful alternative to traffic signals at the busier intersections in Britain.
In fact, what you often get is a roundabout with traffic signals as the only way to successfully keep traffic flowing. And since you have traffic being stopped on the roundabout itself, you still have problems with "amber gamblers" (as they are called in the UK).
And believe me, when you've been sitting between two other cars, the three of you waiting for any small gap in the traffic hurtling round a roundabout at rush hour, and then you all make a break for it at once into the three indistinctly marked lanes on the roundabout, you quickly understand why more and more roundabouts in the UK are being fitted out with traffic lights.
Posted by: tacitus | March 11, 2010 12:58 AM
I got busted by a red light camera in Baltimore. It sure seemed like the shortest yellow I've ever seen. But I wasn't holding a stopwatch.
Posted by: Nemo | March 11, 2010 1:56 AM
But this is because they are intended for use with less busy intersections. and for those who are unaware of such nightmares- try this example of a 'magic roundabout' in my local town of Swindon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)
I'm glad I didn't have to take my driving test there!
Posted by: symball | March 11, 2010 6:33 AM
I drove through the Magic Roundabout a couple of times. Never tried to do it anti-clockwise, though. Not sure what the point of that would be...why not just make the whole thing ONE BIG roundabout?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 11, 2010 3:08 PM
There are several stories out there that debunk the yellow light shortening. It is only a small handful of cities that have done this. It is definitely the wrong approach to the problem. Cities should stay within the intervals mandated by the engineers that study traffic flow. The cameras should be utilized as one tool in the bag to make streets safer.
Posted by: Newtonian physics | March 11, 2010 4:59 PM
I live near San Mateo, CA, where I got a ticket for doing a "rolling" stop through a red. So I looked up the percentage of tickets that are issued for the right hand turn compared to all the straight through violations, and it's about 70%. So, the vast majority of tickets were issued at that light for the not-very-dangerous situation of not completely stopping before making a right turn. I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage was typical for red-light cameras elsewhere. No wonder the Governator espoused the revenue-raising benefits of red-light cameras over their safety benefits.
Posted by: Michael Svihura | March 11, 2010 11:30 PM