First NJ Red Light Cameras

On Aug 31, 12:50*pm, Peter > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 6:55*am, " > wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's not the only way, and it's actually ineffective. If
> > safety is their goal, and not revenue enhancement, they should try
> > proper signal timing first to get better compliance than putting up a
> > camera at an improperly timed signal,.
>
> Who actually argued here for making the yellow phase shorter?
> The lenght of the yellow phase must be set by law -- depending on the
> max. legal speed on the intersection.
> You are arguing against red-light-cameras by arguing against something
> else (too short yellow phase),
> which should be illegal.

it should be illegal, but in practice short yellows and RLCs are found
together about as often as peanut butter and jelly.

nate

On Aug 31, 10:50*am, Peter > wrote:
> On Aug 31, 6:55*am, " > wrote:
>
> > Actually, it's not the only way, and it's actually ineffective. If
> > safety is their goal, and not revenue enhancement, they should try
> > proper signal timing first to get better compliance than putting up a
> > camera at an improperly timed signal,.
>
> Who actually argued here for making the yellow phase shorter?

I didn't suggest that at all. I suggested lengthening the yellow; I
did not imply that anyone said to shorten them.

> The lenght of the yellow phase must be set by law -- depending on the
> max. legal speed on the intersection.

Flexibility is needed rather than one size-fits all. What's
appropriate yellow change interval for a 45 mph approach speed isn't
the same as 45 mph plus a 4 percent descending grade or a horizontal
curve. With those caveats, I actually like the idea of putting proper
yellow intervals into the law because right now, too many places
shortchange the yellow and then profit off their own engineering
flaws.

> You are arguing against red-light-cameras by arguing against something
> else (too short yellow phase),

Not at all. A properly set yellow interval makes cameras uneconomical.

> In fact you are arguing against enforcement of traffic rules.

No, in fact I am not. Why are you reading things into this that I
never said? I am arguing for proper traffic engineering standards. If
you are going to enforce traffic rules, they must be rules that can
reasonably be obeyed. It is not reasonable to expect traffic going 45
mph to all safely stop for the legal three-second minimum yellow
change interval. Giving tickets in that case isn't traffic
enforcement, it's shooting fish in a barrel for the sake of revenue
enhancement AND a dangerous life safety hazard.

> What is different from getting observed by a policeman or by a camera
> when running a red light?

No discretion. Most camera tickets -- like 90 percent of them -- occur
in the first half second of red. It's all about revenue, not safety,

On Aug 31, 11:05*am, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
> wrote:
> > That doesn't necessarily cause them to run lights. Studies have shown
> > that virtually all drivers will stop on red.
>
> I'd sure like to see that study.
>
> Around here -- particularly protected left turns --the red like means
> "If I am number three throught the red, the car two cars back is
> supposed to stop."

It's been a while since I read it, and life's been upside down since
then. I'll see if I can locate it again. I like that anecdotal line
you have, but in reality, if the left turn arrow is properly set for
the flow of traffic, that solves the problem. I have one down the
block from my house and it short cycles often when the double-left
queues are stacked. It's turning yellow before the lead cars are even
through the box. That is an engineering flaw, not a driver flaw.

On Aug 31, 11:08*am, wrote:
> On Aug 31, 12:06*pm, " > wrote:
>
> > > Timing is not the issue if there is a high volume of traffic from both
> > > streets trying to get through an intersection. *That is, no matter how
> > > the light is timed it won't be enough and some drivers will have to
> > > wait for multiple cycles.
>
> > That doesn't necessarily cause them to run lights. Studies have shown
> > that virtually all drivers will stop on red. No one wants to die. It
> > is up to traffic engineers to find that sweet spot where compliance
> > will be optimized. Timing is certainly the issue.
>
> At congested intersections there simply isn't any "sweet spot".

Sure there is. You're just making excuses for lazy engineering.

> I don't know what studies you refer to, but drivers at congested
> intersections--where they wait for multiple light cycles--get
> impatient and tend to run the yellow and red when the signal changes.

That is exponentially enhanced when the turn arrow short-cycles or is
purposely set below the demands of traffic. It's an engineering flaw,
not a driver flaw. If the turn arrow is generous enough, drivers will
stop on red because they haven't felt cheated.

> They've already been waiting for a while and don't want to wait
> through another full cycle, which could be five more minutes.

Do you have any examples of a five-minute cycle? I've never seen one
that long. Sounds like a malfunction.

But I understand the frustration; a well-timed signal will reduce that
to de minimus. An improperly timed signal will exacerbate the problem.
Traffic engineers should be enjoined to do their jobs properly first
before enforcement cameras are brought in. If it's like anywhere else
in the world, a properly timed signal will eliminate the need for a
camera.

> Also on highways where the speed limit is higher a yellow light means
> drivers must hit the brakes and slow down from their hgih speed.

No it doesn't. In nearly every state (Louisiana is one exception of
which I know) yellow means the light will soon turn red. In some
states (Oregon, I believe, is one) the law says you should stop if you
can safely do so, but a driver can legally enter on yellow.

> They'd rather keep going and thus tend to run yellow and red lights.

No, they make instantaneous judgments based on their speed and
distance from the stop bar as to whether it's safe and prudent to try
to make a precipitous stop or to stay with the flow and get through
legally under yellow. The driver normally makes this choice from
instinct without much deliberation. It is the traffic engineer's job
to make that choice reasonable for the driver by providing sufficient
yellow change intervals.

> Many major traffic lights have a brief all-red cycle during the
> change. *Drivers are aware of this and figure they have extra safe
> time.

No, the all-red phase is a necessary one because drivers legally
completing their turns are entitled to safety, and the signal should
not turn green for opposing traffic until the last phase has a chance
to legally complete the move. It's not to allow safety for red light
runners, it's an integral part of clearing legal traffic from the box.

I have been through wide intersections where I entered *on green* and
not made it out of the box before it goes yellow and then red --
mostly protected lefts, which tend to have shorter yellows because of
slower approach speeds in turn lanes.

On Aug 31, 11:08*am, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 8:41 am, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Aug 30, 2:10 pm, "John A. Weeks III" > wrote:
> >>>> The only way to get people to obey the red
> >>>> lights is to have the traffic light offenders suffer some
> >>>> consequence of their action, preferably before they kill someone.
> >>> Actually, it's not the only way, and it's actually ineffective. If
> >>> safety is their goal, and not revenue enhancement, they should try
> >>> proper signal timing first to get better compliance than putting up a
> >>> camera at an improperly timed signal,.
> >> I've always thought it would be a good idea to put those retractable
> >> tire ripper thing in the street--extend halfway through the yellow,
> >> retract on the green.
>
> > It's legal in nearly all states to enter an intersection on yellow.
> > Laws of physics always trump laws of traffic!
>
> When I learned to drive and for many years after that, the yellow light
> was functionally meaningless except as a warning that red was about to
> appear.

That's pretty much the case, yes. And that's as it should be. If you
insist people stop on yellow, you're asking for something that for
many people is physically impossible. If you're 10 feet from the line
when the light turns yellow and you're going 35, you cannot possibly
stop safely behind the line. Where is the break point? Different for
different drivers but with a reasonable deceleration rate plugged into
the equation, you can time the yellow properly. Watch a platoon of
traffic approaching a signal, and watch where the natural break tends
to occur each time in the mass of cars when the signal turns yellow.
The higher the speed, the farther back in the line that break will
occur. But it will tend to be consistent. The yellow should be long
enough for all the vehicles in front of that break to safely transit
through the intersection before red.

> It was illegal to be in the intersection defined by limit lines, painted
> or not, when facing a red light

I don't recall that that was ever the case except in Louisiana. It's
actually a physical impossibility to comply with that in many cases.
It is always legal to still be moving through the intersection under
red as long as you entered before the red and can exit.

wrote:
> On Aug 31, 11:05 am, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> That doesn't necessarily cause them to run lights. Studies have shown
>>> that virtually all drivers will stop on red.
>> I'd sure like to see that study.
>>
>> Around here -- particularly protected left turns --the red like means
>> "If I am number three throught the red, the car two cars back is
>> supposed to stop."
>
> It's been a while since I read it, and life's been upside down since
> then. I'll see if I can locate it again. I like that anecdotal line
> you have, but in reality, if the left turn arrow is properly set for
> the flow of traffic, that solves the problem. I have one down the
> block from my house and it short cycles often when the double-left
> queues are stacked. It's turning yellow before the lead cars are even
> through the box. That is an engineering flaw, not a driver flaw.


--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

On Aug 31, 11:12*am, necromancer
rg> wrote:
> >The lenght of the yellow phase must be set by law -- depending on the
> >max. legal speed on the intersection.
>
> I'd like to believe that the cities that have been caught know that
> now, but I doubt it.
>
> >You are arguing against red-light-cameras by arguing against something
> >else (too short yellow phase),which should be illegal.
> >In fact you are arguing against enforcement of traffic rules.
>
> No, we are not. We are arguing against the use of traffic enforcemenet
> at a means of generating revenue.


I think you're hijacking this thread.
A lot of things are useful but can be misused.


> >What is different from getting observed by a policeman or by a camera
> >when running a red light?
>
> If the town is playing by the rules, nothing. But as the article above
> shows, many towns are not playing by the rules.


Policeman also give tickets, which have money penalities attached.
They could also potentially be used to increase revenue.

Larry Sheldon wrote:

Oops, sorry about the unusually empty reply....

I'll try again......


> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 11:05 am, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> That doesn't necessarily cause them to run lights. Studies have shown
>>>> that virtually all drivers will stop on red.
>>> I'd sure like to see that study.
>>>
>>> Around here -- particularly protected left turns --the red like means
>>> "If I am number three through the red, the car two cars back is
>>> supposed to stop."
>>
>> It's been a while since I read it, and life's been upside down since
>> then. I'll see if I can locate it again. I like that anecdotal line
>> you have, but in reality, if the left turn arrow is properly set for
>> the flow of traffic, that solves the problem. I have one down the
>> block from my house and it short cycles often when the double-left
>> queues are stacked. It's turning yellow before the lead cars are even
>> through the box. That is an engineering flaw, not a driver flaw.

This intersection is the worst, in my mind, but not by any means the
only bad one around.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...03484&t=h&z=19

(First a couple of start-up notes--I have no idea what the "Hartman Ave"
is about--I've never heard of one in the area. And West Center Road has
been 4our-lane-divide as ling as I have lived here although the bridge
to the left off-screen was not. Note that people west-bound on West
Center Road have to make a right turn--they get either a green light or
a green arrow most of the time. (Most of the time there is no
west-bound Center to east-bound Industrial--I think that is a
demand-only. So the west-bound-continuing traffic gets a red only when
west-bound Industrial to Westbound West Center has a green.)

So the westbound Center to Center traffic sees little red and even then
except in the evening they can turn right after "stopping" (slowing
enough not to spin out).

The only thing that actually stops them is somebody on westbound
Industrial to westbound Center actually posing an immediate threat and
not showing any attempt to yield.

Similarly, most of the east-bound Center traffic continues on Center
(turns left). They see a green arrow or green ball most of the time,
but they too stop long after they have gotten a red.

So I'm not clear on how that can be solved by engineering. Unless the
engineering includes tire slashers as I suggested elsewhere.

--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

>> Hey, as I wrote a while ago, an intersection near me that is always
>> backed
>> up 3-4 light cycles experienced some kind of failure where there were no
>> lights at all. (not even the default mode of flashing red....NOTHING)
>> Result was traffic moving smoothly in all directions with hardly a pause.
>> No backup at all. It was a tremendous improvement. -Dave
>
> I suspect that is a very unusual circumstance. We sometimes see
> traffic lights go to 4-way flash after thunderstorms move through
> the area. This can create a huge backup where a pair of 4-lane
> streets intersect. When I see something like that, I generally
> make a U-turn rather than wait the 20 minutes that it takes to
> wade through the line to get through malfunctioning intersection.
>
> -john-
>

That must be a 1 in a million type of intersection where the light is timed
correctly and synchronized CORRECTLY with other lights in the area. 99.99%
of traffic lights are not timed correctly, so simply tearing them down and
not replacing them with anything would improve traffic flow and safety, as
well as be a tremendous improvement as far as environmental impact is
concerned. (less fuel burned in the area, lower emissions) -Dave

"Scott in SoCal" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, "Dave"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hey, as I wrote a while ago, an intersection near me that is always backed
>>up 3-4 light cycles experienced some kind of failure where there were no
>>lights at all. (not even the default mode of flashing red....NOTHING)
>>Result was traffic moving smoothly in all directions with hardly a pause.
>>No backup at all. It was a tremendous improvement.
>
> I don't believe that for a second.
>
> What usually happens when traffic signals go completely out is people
> just sail right through the intersection at full speed, just as if the
> light were green.
>
> It only takes two of these idiots travelling in perpendicular
> directions to create a jam-up WAY longer than 3-4 light cycles.

In SoCal? Somehow, I believe that. The only worse drivers I've seen
anywhere in the world that I've been live within roughly 200 miles of Boston
(as a crow flies) -Dave