RLCs Can Be a Good Thing

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> (*) By this I mean that the yellow light times are not shortened to
> increase revenue, but are instead maintained at their current legal
> settings.

I don't think that yellow phase times necessarily are shortened. They
may be too short even before camera installation.

Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally. If there is an
intersection that has a high rate of drivers running red lights, then
there's something wrong with the intersection. For instance, if the
intersection has a 3 second yellow, but traffic speeds typically range
from 35 to 40 mph, then the yellow phase time is too short. Even if the
posted limit is 25 mph and the lights are legally timed for that speed,
that doesn't mean that the best solution is to place a RLC rather than
adjusting the yellow phase time to reflect actual traffic speeds.

The point that some people have made is that RLCs are placed at
intersections where they have the potential to generate the most profit.
In order to do that, the intersection in question has to have a high
rate of red light running.

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*)
> are ultimately a Good Thing.
>
> Let's assume Dave C. is correct, and that, at least initially, Driver
> A will slam on his brakes when the light turns yellow, and that Driver
> B behind him will rear-end Driver A as a result. However, if the RLCs
> are capable of modifying Driver A's behavior, then Driver B's behavior
> will also change. After seeing, hearing about, or being involved in a
> rear-end collision at an intersection equipped with a RLC, the Driver
> Bs will begin to anticipate the possibility that the Driver As ahead
> of them are going to stop, and will make adjustments to avoid hitting
> them, just as the Driver As learned to anticipate getting a ticket.
>
> Thus, even if Dave is correct and rear-end collision rates rise, that
> rise will be only temporary; eventually, even that rate will drop.
>
> I'm certainly not opposed to sacrificing a few morons in rear-enders
> until they figure out that they shouldn't tailgate.
>
> (*) By this I mean that the yellow light times are not shortened to
> increase revenue, but are instead maintained at their current legal
> settings.
>

Most places do not assign points to RLC issued tickets.
Thus,one never has their driver's license in jeopardy for such dangerous
behavior.
That's plain wrong.

Next,one could conceivably run several red lights in the course of a single
day,and by the time one gets their FIRST RLC ticket in the mail,perhaps
have run hundreds of them.It's very possible someone has killed another by
running a red light while their first RLC ticket was still in the mail.
No driver will modify their driving behavior *until* they receive that 1st
ticket in the mail,*which can be weeks later*.

However,a driver who runs a red light,and gets pulled over on the spot by a
police officer and written a citation gets points on their license,OTHER
drivers see them getting pulled over,and both the RL runner *and others*
may modify their driving behavior.

The public is far better served by real police writing real citations for
RL running,no matter how much the fine.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Arif Khokar > wrote in
:

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> (*) By this I mean that the yellow light times are not shortened to
>> increase revenue, but are instead maintained at their current legal
>> settings.
>
> I don't think that yellow phase times necessarily are shortened. They
> may be too short even before camera installation.
>
> Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally.

Maybe not in YOUR town.
Orlando,it's usually intentional.Several cars go thru on a single light.

> If there is an
> intersection that has a high rate of drivers running red lights, then
> there's something wrong with the intersection.

Or traffic volume has just grown to the point where drivers would rather
run the light than sit thru another cycle.(Orlando) Especially if there is
little chance of getting ticketed for it.


I wonder if those RLCs can photograph multiple cars running a single red
light,bumper to bumper? Like up to 7 at 1 light change.
I see that here often.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...

> >Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally.
>
> Agreed - and that's why I don't really mind RLCs as long as they are
> functioning properly.

And you know as well as I do that honesty and government are mutually
exclusive concepts. When government sees the unrestricted revenue to be
generated by a "functioning properly," but incorrectly set combination
of RLC and traffic signal, watch the yellow light time go down (or the
yellow even be eliminated) and the number of RLC tickets issued
skyrocket.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*)
> are ultimately a Good Thing.
>

But the best answer is still stiff penalties. If RLRs knew they'd lose
their license they wouldn't do it. Problem solved.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:27:11 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
>

>I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*)
>are ultimately a Good Thing.
>
>Let's assume Dave C. is correct, and that, at least initially, Driver
>A will slam on his brakes when the light turns yellow, and that Driver
>B behind him will rear-end Driver A as a result. However, if the RLCs
>are capable of modifying Driver A's behavior, then Driver B's behavior
>will also change. After seeing, hearing about, or being involved in a
>rear-end collision at an intersection equipped with a RLC, the Driver
>Bs will begin to anticipate the possibility that the Driver As ahead
>of them are going to stop, and will make adjustments to avoid hitting
>them, just as the Driver As learned to anticipate getting a ticket.
>
>Thus, even if Dave is correct and rear-end collision rates rise, that
>rise will be only temporary; eventually, even that rate will drop.
>
>I'm certainly not opposed to sacrificing a few morons in rear-enders
>until they figure out that they shouldn't tailgate.
>
>(*) By this I mean that the yellow light times are not shortened to
>increase revenue, but are instead maintained at their current legal
>settings.


He has seen the light!

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:47:36 GMT, Arif Khokar >

>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> (*) By this I mean that the yellow light times are not shortened to
>> increase revenue, but are instead maintained at their current legal
>> settings.
>
>I don't think that yellow phase times necessarily are shortened. They
>may be too short even before camera installation.
>
>Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally.

Most drivers do not run red lights.

Those that do, usually do so because they intentionally didn't stop when
they could and should have.


> If there is an
>intersection that has a high rate of drivers running red lights, then
>there's something wrong with the intersection. For instance, if the
>intersection has a 3 second yellow, but traffic speeds typically range
>from 35 to 40 mph, then the yellow phase time is too short. Even if the
>posted limit is 25 mph and the lights are legally timed for that speed,
>that doesn't mean that the best solution is to place a RLC rather than
>adjusting the yellow phase time to reflect actual traffic speeds.
>
>The point that some people have made is that RLCs are placed at
>intersections where they have the potential to generate the most profit.
> In order to do that, the intersection in question has to have a high
>rate of red light running.

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Arif Khokar > wrote:

>>Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally.

> Maybe not in YOUR town.

Not in my town, or in most towns I drive through.

> Orlando,it's usually intentional.Several cars go thru on a single light.

I haven't been to Orlando in a long time, but the last time I was in
Miami, I did not see the behavior you describe.

>>If there is an
>>intersection that has a high rate of drivers running red lights, then
>>there's something wrong with the intersection.

> Or traffic volume has just grown to the point where drivers would rather
> run the light than sit thru another cycle.(Orlando) Especially if there is
> little chance of getting ticketed for it.

So if RLCs are installed there (if they haven't been already), then we
can expect to see a moderate amount of revenue for a short period of
time. Then the income will drop to near zero.

If that will or has actually happened, then I'll believe you when you
say that RLCs work to reduce red light running.

Mike Z. Helm wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:

>>Most drivers do not run red lights intentionally.

> Most drivers do not run red lights.

If very few drivers ran red lights, then there would be very little
money coming in from RLCs.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> I've come to the realization that RLCs, if implemented correctly,(*)
> are ultimately a Good Thing.

What is the motivation of government to correctly implement RLCs? What
do they get in return for the expenditure?