The real reason for opposition to red light cameras

On 25 Apr 2005 16:06:17 -0700, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:

>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> Got this idea from another poster and it makes sense. Cameras can't
>> engage in profiling or be bribed. With cameras at intersections, even
>> the lawyers and cops and doctors and big-shot politicians get caught
>> and we can't have that can we?
>
>
>http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...es/15local.htm
>
>April 25, 2005
>
>
>Since You Asked [Opinion Feature of Mail Tribune, Jackson, OR]
>
>Running red lights deterred by timed lights [Headline]
>
>I was wondering why the city does not change the timing on the traffic
>signals to cut down on people running red lights. When we were in
>Washington last month there was a 3- to 5-second delay when one light
>changed to red and the other changed to green. Wouldn't this be helpful
>along with the red-light cameras?

No, what a completely asinine suggestion. Why not just leave all the
lights red all the time?

> Thanks.
>- Roger P., Medford
>
>Wouldn't that just let more cars through on the red light, Roger? Don't
>mind us, we're just a pack of cynics up here in our ivory tower.
>
>We asked Cory Crebbin, the Medford Public Works director. He also
>happened to work in public works in Washington, so he knows exactly
>what you're talking about because he's set traffic signal timing in
>both states.
>
>In Washington, they operate traffic signals to fit a difference in the
>law the If you can get into the intersection on the yellow, you
>haven't run the red light in Washington.

Which is a completely asinine way to write the law since it ENCOURAGES
people to inch out into an intersection that they know they'll NEVER
be able to get through before the light turns red.

How do they prevent intersections from just becoming clogged with
traffic?

My guess is they don't.


>In Oregon, the law says if you
>could have safely stopped on the yellow, you should have, and because
>you didn't, you ran a red light.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me

>
>So traffic lights are timed differently in the two states.
>
>To make the traffic signals operate safely under the Washington law,
>they have a signal phase called "all red" - all lights are red
>briefly in an intersection. That "all red" phase isn't common in Oregon
>because, like our cynical tendencies suggested earlier, it would result
>in more red-light running.
>
>Crebbin said he's not aware of any significant difference in the length
>of the yellow phases in the two states.
>
>Send questions to "Since You Asked," Mail Tribune Newsroom, P.O. Box
>1108, Medford, OR 97501; by fax to 541-776-4376; or by e-mail to
?subject=Since You Asked. We're sorry,
>but the volume of questions received prevents us from answering all of
>them.
>
>
>
>How is Oregon's rule of safely stopping on yellow determined? Is it a
>subjective test by a police observer? Is there a difference in the
>number of signalized interesection crashes between Washington and
>Oregon? Or does the question of running the red come up only in the
>case of a crash? What criteria do Oregon police use for issuing tickets
>for running the red?

"K Smythe" > wrote in message
...
>
>>In Washington, they operate traffic signals to fit a difference in the
>>law the If you can get into the intersection on the yellow, you
>>haven't run the red light in Washington.
>
> Which is a completely asinine way to write the law since it ENCOURAGES
> people to inch out into an intersection that they know they'll NEVER
> be able to get through before the light turns red.
>
> How do they prevent intersections from just becoming clogged with
> traffic?
>
> My guess is they don't.
>
>
Well, one way we deal with that situation in WA (at least Seattle)
the Seattle Municipal Code states in 11.50.070 that "no driver shall enter
an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is available space on the
other side of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is
operating." The fine for blocking: $71.


Make sense?
You may enter on yellow, provided there is a space on the *other side* of
the intersection for your vehicle, if not you get a ticket, not for the red
light, but for remaining in the intersection.



>>In Oregon, the law says if you
>>could have safely stopped on the yellow, you should have, and because
>>you didn't, you ran a red light.
>
> Seems perfectly reasonable to me

Seems perfectly subjective to me.

Bernard

K Smythe wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2005 16:06:17 -0700, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
> >In Washington, they operate traffic signals to fit a difference in
the
> >law the If you can get into the intersection on the yellow, you
> >haven't run the red light in Washington.
>
> Which is a completely asinine way to write the law since it
ENCOURAGES
> people to inch out into an intersection that they know they'll NEVER
> be able to get through before the light turns red.
>
> How do they prevent intersections from just becoming clogged with
> traffic?
>
> My guess is they don't.

Actually, the way it's outlined above is exectly how traffic works in
nearly every city in the land thousands of times a day. At most
intersections with permissive lefts on a green ball, the law allows and
anticipates crossing the line to wait for a turn. The exception, again
in most laws already, is that you cannot enter the intersection --
i.e., cross the line, unless there is room for you also to exit it at
the time. *That* is what prevents an intersection from being clogged
with traffic.

Incidentally, since you don't appear to be aware of this, it is equally
illegal in these places to enter an intersection *on a green light* let
alone a yellow light, if there is no room on the other side to exit the
box of the intersection.

> >In Oregon, the law says if you
> >could have safely stopped on the yellow, you should have, and
because
> >you didn't, you ran a red light.
>
> Seems perfectly reasonable to me

How so? Actually it sounds completely unreasonable and illogical. The
person who would do what is outlined above did not run a red light. You
only run a red light when you cross the stop line *after* the light has
turned red. In the example above, the driver was across the line on
yellow. As long as he can continue and leave the intersection, no law
would be broken.

On 27 Apr 2005 12:42:53 -0700, wrote:

>
>This doesn't make yellow light running illegal because it has the
>provision common in many states that makes slowing down and stopping on
>yellow conditional on safety -- IOW, the ability to safely come to a
>stop at the line when you see the light go yellow.
>

Yup - pretty simple and straightforward.

>The statute you quoted says: "If a driver cannot stop in safety, the
>driver may drive cautiously through the intersection."
>
>I guess this plays into your earlier comment that it's rarely enforced
>because it is so subjective.

From what I have observed red light running in states where red light
running is defined as entering the intersection AFTER the light turns
red is much worse and even less strictly enforced than in states where
it is defined as not stopping for a yellow when it is safe to do so.

Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if
you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to get a
ticket.

Again, this is just my experience and observation.

K Smythe wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2005 12:42:53 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >This doesn't make yellow light running illegal because it has the
> >provision common in many states that makes slowing down and stopping
on
> >yellow conditional on safety -- IOW, the ability to safely come to a
> >stop at the line when you see the light go yellow.
> >
>
> Yup - pretty simple and straightforward.

Not really, not at all. It has to do with prevailing speeds, yellow
phase timing, braking distance etc. A driver must make the judgement
whether a safe stop can be made.

> >The statute you quoted says: "If a driver cannot stop in safety, the
> >driver may drive cautiously through the intersection."
> >
> >I guess this plays into your earlier comment that it's rarely
enforced
> >because it is so subjective.
>
> From what I have observed red light running in states where red light
> running is defined as entering the intersection AFTER the light turns
> red is much worse and even less strictly enforced than in states
where
> it is defined as not stopping for a yellow when it is safe to do so.

Nearly *all* states define red light running as entering an
intersection *after* a light is red. You cannot run a red light when
the light is not red.

> Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if
> you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to get a
> ticket.

Not at all. Nearly all states that I have seen have adopted the uniform
model statute that permits completion of movement once you are legally
in the intersection. I'll have you know that in many intersections here
in the Denver area -- massive ones with six thrrough lanes and double
and sometimes triple lefts -- it is quite likely *on every single
cycle* that some cars will enter the intersection *on a green light or
arrow* and be unable even at normal speed to exit the box before red.
So you see, your position is quite unenforceable in most circumstances.

On 27 Apr 2005 14:35:27 -0700, wrote:

>K Smythe wrote:
>> On 25 Apr 2005 16:06:17 -0700, "Dick Boyd" > wrote:
>> >In Washington, they operate traffic signals to fit a difference in
>the
>> >law the If you can get into the intersection on the yellow, you
>> >haven't run the red light in Washington.
>>
>> Which is a completely asinine way to write the law since it
>ENCOURAGES
>> people to inch out into an intersection that they know they'll NEVER
>> be able to get through before the light turns red.
>>
>> How do they prevent intersections from just becoming clogged with
>> traffic?
>>
>> My guess is they don't.
>
>Actually, the way it's outlined above is exectly how traffic works in
>nearly every city in the land thousands of times a day. At most
>intersections with permissive lefts on a green ball, the law allows and
>anticipates crossing the line to wait for a turn. The exception, again
>in most laws already, is that you cannot enter the intersection --
>i.e., cross the line, unless there is room for you also to exit it at
>the time. *That* is what prevents an intersection from being clogged
>with traffic.

That may work in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work very well at
all - from what I've observed.

>
>Incidentally, since you don't appear to be aware of this, it is equally
>illegal in these places to enter an intersection *on a green light* let
>alone a yellow light, if there is no room on the other side to exit the
>box of the intersection.

Well, it's good to know all those people are getting away with
violating traffic laws.

>
>> >In Oregon, the law says if you
>> >could have safely stopped on the yellow, you should have, and
>because
>> >you didn't, you ran a red light.
>>
>> Seems perfectly reasonable to me
>
>How so?

As the other guy said, I guess it's subjective, but it makes sense to
me.

Yellow means the light's about to turn red (everywhere).

If you *can* stop safely, you should. Thus the intersection *should*
be clear when the light turns red.

If you can legally enter as long as the light is yellow, this almost
certainly insures that the intersection will have cars in it when the
light turns red.

In practice here (where you can enter as long as it's yellow), people
with green lights must consistently wait for the intersection to
clear.

>Actually it sounds completely unreasonable and illogical. The
>person who would do what is outlined above did not run a red light.

But we're dealing with 2 different legal definitions of running a red
light.


>You
>only run a red light when you cross the stop line *after* the light has
>turned red.

According to the laws in some states.

>In the example above, the driver was across the line on
>yellow. As long as he can continue and leave the intersection, no law
>would be broken.

Only in some states.

I don't know how other states work, but if you move here (AZ) and
already have a license in another state, you are automatically granted
a driver's license after passing an eye test that a bat would have no
problem passing.

There is absolutely NO attempt to insure that you know the laws, and
the manual the MVD issues does not go into detail about such things as
red light laws.

IIRC, it simply says it's illegal to run red lights and leaves the
definition of red light running to the imagination of the driver -
unless of course, you wish to pour thru the actual legal code and
figure it out for yourself.

Of course, I expect to be flamed by some here who expect that
everybody *should* do that.

But since they don't write tickets for red lights here (or for
blocking an intersection), why should I bother?

On 27 Apr 2005 15:00:55 -0700, wrote:

>
>K Smythe wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2005 12:42:53 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >This doesn't make yellow light running illegal because it has the
>> >provision common in many states that makes slowing down and stopping
>on
>> >yellow conditional on safety -- IOW, the ability to safely come to a
>> >stop at the line when you see the light go yellow.
>> >
>>
>> Yup - pretty simple and straightforward.
>
>Not really, not at all. It has to do with prevailing speeds, yellow
>phase timing, braking distance etc. A driver must make the judgement
>whether a safe stop can be made.

If a driver is incapable of making such a judgement call, they have
absolutely no business behind the wheel.

Bear in mind, that even in states like that, there will be some margin
of error built into the timing of lights.

A minor lapse in judgment will not lead to an accident, although it
might lead to a ticket.

>
>> >The statute you quoted says: "If a driver cannot stop in safety, the
>> >driver may drive cautiously through the intersection."
>> >
>> >I guess this plays into your earlier comment that it's rarely
>enforced
>> >because it is so subjective.
>>
>> From what I have observed red light running in states where red light
>> running is defined as entering the intersection AFTER the light turns
>> red is much worse and even less strictly enforced than in states
>where
>> it is defined as not stopping for a yellow when it is safe to do so.
>
>Nearly *all* states define red light running as entering an
>intersection *after* a light is red. You cannot run a red light when
>the light is not red.

That all depends on the legal definition of running a red light.

>
>> Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if
>> you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to get a
>> ticket.
>
>Not at all. Nearly all states

Maybe I wasn't clear - IME, that seems to be the rule of thumb for
states in which if a light is yellow and you can stop safely that you
must stop safely.

> that I have seen have adopted the uniform
>model statute that permits completion of movement once you are legally
>in the intersection.

And again, "legally in the intersection" is defined differently in
different states.


>I'll have you know that in many intersections here
>in the Denver area

What kind of arrogant ass are you?

"I'll have you know...."

Sheesh

>-- massive ones with six thrrough lanes and double
>and sometimes triple lefts -- it is quite likely *on every single
>cycle* that some cars will enter the intersection *on a green light or
>arrow* and be unable even at normal speed to exit the box before red.

Well, Denver's a small town (by my standards) and IME (in states where
you must stop on yellow if you can do so safely) cars that legally
enter the intersection are definitely going to be able to make it out
before it turns red.

>So you see, your position is quite unenforceable in most circumstances.

It's not *my* position. It's quite simply the law in a number of
states.

K Smythe wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2005 15:00:55 -0700, wrote:
> >K Smythe wrote:
> >> On 27 Apr 2005 12:42:53 -0700, wrote:
> >> >This doesn't make yellow light running illegal because it has the
> >> >provision common in many states that makes slowing down and
stopping
> >on
> >> >yellow conditional on safety -- IOW, the ability to safely come
to a
> >> >stop at the line when you see the light go yellow.
> >>
> >> Yup - pretty simple and straightforward.
> >
> >Not really, not at all. It has to do with prevailing speeds, yellow
> >phase timing, braking distance etc. A driver must make the judgement
> >whether a safe stop can be made.
>
> If a driver is incapable of making such a judgement call, they have
> absolutely no business behind the wheel.

Ummm, maybe you should read it again. I never said drivers are
incapable of making these judgements. I was listing the variables that
go into those very judgements that they *do* make. Please don't divert
the meaning again.

> Bear in mind, that even in states like that, there will be some
margin
> of error built into the timing of lights.
>
> A minor lapse in judgment will not lead to an accident, although it
> might lead to a ticket.

No it wouldn't. That's what I am trying to tell you here. The law, even
the one cited here earlier, gave the driver a "safety" clause within
which to make the judgement. Again, you cannot run a red light when the
light is not red.

> >> >The statute you quoted says: "If a driver cannot stop in safety,
the
> >> >driver may drive cautiously through the intersection."
> >> >
> >> >I guess this plays into your earlier comment that it's rarely
> >enforced
> >> >because it is so subjective.
> >>
> >> From what I have observed red light running in states where red
light
> >> running is defined as entering the intersection AFTER the light
turns
> >> red is much worse and even less strictly enforced than in states
> >where
> >> it is defined as not stopping for a yellow when it is safe to do
so.
> >
> >Nearly *all* states define red light running as entering an
> >intersection *after* a light is red. You cannot run a red light when
> >the light is not red.
>
> That all depends on the legal definition of running a red light.

And as I have said earlier, state statutes I've seen run off the model
statute that says you run a red light when you cross the stop line
*after* the light has turned red. These laws make specific allowance
for the inexcapable fact that in many locations, it is expected that
there will still be cars clearing through a large intersection after
the signal has turned red. Happens thousands, probably tens of
thousands of times a day and is the legal anticipated way of handling
the intersection.
>
> >
> >> Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if
> >> you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to
get a
> >> ticket.
> >
> >Not at all. Nearly all states
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear - IME, that seems to be the rule of thumb for
> states in which if a light is yellow and you can stop safely that you
> must stop safely.

Well, you were clear when you said the rule of thumb is you'd get a
ticket if you're still in the intersection when the signal turns red
and, as I've told you, in most states I've seen that's completely
incorrect. You are allowed to clear the intersection. The laws
specifically allow this, so you would *not* get a ticlket metrely for
*being in* the intersection on your way out of it when the light turns
red.

> > that I have seen have adopted the uniform
> >model statute that permits completion of movement once you are
legally
> >in the intersection.
>
> And again, "legally in the intersection" is defined differently in
> different states.

Then cite please. All the laws I've seen, with the possible exception
of LA, define "legally in the intersection" in substantially the same
boilerplate way, and that is, across the stop line before the red
light.
>
> >I'll have you know that in many intersections here
> >in the Denver area
>
> What kind of arrogant ass are you?
>
> "I'll have you know...."
>
> Sheesh

What kind of ignoramus are you! You've been showing your complete lack
of knowledge here so I am trying to inform you of something. It's a
standard way of introducing something you're unaware of. Get over
yourself and just consider the facts I'm giving you.

> >-- massive ones with six thrrough lanes and double
> >and sometimes triple lefts -- it is quite likely *on every single
> >cycle* that some cars will enter the intersection *on a green light
or
> >arrow* and be unable even at normal speed to exit the box before
red.
>
> Well, Denver's a small town (by my standards)

Where do you live then? Our traffic problems are not small. We're
unfortunately ranked pretty consistently in the top 5 metro areas for
traffic congestion in the annual TTI study

> and IME (in states where
> you must stop on yellow if you can do so safely) ...

And which states would those be?
cars that legally

> enter the intersection are definitely going to be able to make it out
> before it turns red.

That is definitely false. It depends on too many variables. Unless you
have 6 or 7 second yellows at all your lights.

> >So you see, your position is quite unenforceable in most
circumstances.
>
> It's not *my* position. It's quite simply the law in a number of
> states.

Cite one then, and stop simply asserting it. Most state laws I've seen
make no such prohibition, and in fact allow for traffic to still be
clearing the intersection when the signal turns red.

K Smythe wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2005 14:35:27 -0700, wrote:
>
> >K Smythe wrote:
> >> On 25 Apr 2005 16:06:17 -0700, "Dick Boyd" >
wrote:
> >> >In Washington, they operate traffic signals to fit a difference
in
> >the
> >> >law the If you can get into the intersection on the yellow,
you
> >> >haven't run the red light in Washington.
> >>
> >> Which is a completely asinine way to write the law since it
> >ENCOURAGES
> >> people to inch out into an intersection that they know they'll
NEVER
> >> be able to get through before the light turns red.
> >>
> >> How do they prevent intersections from just becoming clogged with
> >> traffic?
> >>
> >> My guess is they don't.
> >
> >Actually, the way it's outlined above is exectly how traffic works
in
> >nearly every city in the land thousands of times a day. At most
> >intersections with permissive lefts on a green ball, the law allows
and
> >anticipates crossing the line to wait for a turn. The exception,
again
> >in most laws already, is that you cannot enter the intersection --
> >i.e., cross the line, unless there is room for you also to exit it
at
> >the time. *That* is what prevents an intersection from being clogged
> >with traffic.
>
> That may work in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work very well
at
> all - from what I've observed.

Then you need to get out and observe some more. It works everywhere,
and it's the standard. My obvervation is the opposite of yours. Just
yesterday on my way to CDOT, a fellow in front of me waiting to make a
left off Colorado Boulevard (where there is no left arrow) refused to
move beyond the stop line to stake out a left for when the light turned
yellow-->red. As a result, we waited three cycles for a break in heavy
traffic, while the left turn bay filled up until it blocked mainline
traffic in the left lane. See? The result of what you advocate actually
increases congestion.

> >Incidentally, since you don't appear to be aware of this, it is
equally
> >illegal in these places to enter an intersection *on a green light*
let
> >alone a yellow light, if there is no room on the other side to exit
the
> >box of the intersection.
>
> Well, it's good to know all those people are getting away with
> violating traffic laws.

What people are you talking about? Most people in my experience observe
the "don't block the box" dictum.

> >> >In Oregon, the law says if you
> >> >could have safely stopped on the yellow, you should have, and
> >because
> >> >you didn't, you ran a red light.
> >>
> >> Seems perfectly reasonable to me
> >
> >How so?
>
> As the other guy said, I guess it's subjective, but it makes sense to
> me.

How can it make sense that you've run a red light when the light in
fact is yellow, not red?

> Yellow means the light's about to turn red (everywhere).

But is not red yet.

> If you *can* stop safely, you should. Thus the intersection
*should*
> be clear when the light turns red.

That does not follow at all. There can be many instances in which it
isn't possible to safely stop at the line upon seeing the light turn
yellow. The yellow phase could be short, prevailing speeds could be
higher, or whatever else. That's exactly why the law provides for your
right to clear the intersection if you entered it on yellow.

> If you can legally enter as long as the light is yellow, this almost
> certainly insures that the intersection will have cars in it when the
> light turns red.

Not exactly. At the margin, where the safe decision zone is, cars will
be braking and will be coming to a stop. Drivers who are beyond the
safe decision zone will -- and ought to -- continue. If they are in the
intersection when the light turns red, that's fine and legal as long as
they are exiting.

> In practice here (where you can enter as long as it's yellow), people
> with green lights must consistently wait for the intersection to
> clear.

That's what they have to do anyway. It's their legal responsibility.
Why is that a problem? No one can enter an intersection if it is not
clear.

> >Actually it sounds completely unreasonable and illogical. The
> >person who would do what is outlined above did not run a red light.
>
> But we're dealing with 2 different legal definitions of running a red
> light.

You have yet to provide any legal substantiation for the definition you
propose. My definition is substantiated in every state code I've looked
at although I admit I haven't looked at them all.

> >You
> >only run a red light when you cross the stop line *after* the light
has
> >turned red.
>
> According to the laws in some states.

Yes, all those I've looked at. Would you please city which ones have
have a different provision?

> >In the example above, the driver was across the line on
> >yellow. As long as he can continue and leave the intersection, no
law
> >would be broken.
>
> Only in some states.

Again, please cite the states in which this would not be legal.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:49:20 -0700, K Smythe > wrote:

>On 27 Apr 2005 12:42:53 -0700, wrote:

>Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if
>you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to get a
>ticket.

What if you're waiting to make a left turn?

What if you're waiting to make a left turn, and you find yourself in a
left-turn trap?