First NJ Red Light Cameras

Larry Sheldon wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>> I can't find a source for the VC here, but lots of people won't cross
>>> the limit line on a left turn if there is conflicting traffic.
>>
>> That is a bad habit, IMO. I always stake out my left turn in the box
>> on green. At busy locations where there is no protected left phase, it
>> is in fact necessary to do so or you would never get through.
>
> In the twenty years I have lived here, I have been told a dozen times
> that that is illegal here.
>
> As I said, I have never been able to find a way of accessing the VC here
> without buying the whole (several hundreds of dollars worth) shelf of
> books, so I don't actually know what the law says.

I am not aware of any state where that is illegal, but not knowing
where you live, I can't state that with 100% certainty. (I believe
Louisiana is a wild card, and is one state in which you actually can
get a ticket for running a "yellow" light, which is just freaking
insane.)

>
>> Not at all. There are many suburban and even urban intersections with
>> such large geometry that it is in fact impossible to be out of the box
>> by the time the red comes on even if you've entered on green let alone
>> yellow. And this is not a problem, it's to be expected. that's why we
>> have the clearance all-red phase.
>
> Bad engineering.
>
> Pure and simple.

How else do you cross a eight lane road when the cross street has a
low speed limit? You're seeing a problem where none exists. You'd
need an extraordinarily long yellow light to allow for that, where
there's really no justification for same. Far better to have a normal
length yellow and then an all-red clearance interval long enough to
allow the cross traffic to clear the intersection.

>
>>> With
>>> defensive driving, reasonable speed, attention to the situation and
>>> such, it is easy to do.
>>
>> Nope. I get caught in it all the time, at slow speeds, on protected
>> lefts. Three-second yellows after I entered on green arrow, and I am
>> still exiting the box when the red arrow comes on.
>
> Shouldn't have entered the intersection until you are assured of being
> able to exit it. You are a gridlock waiting to happen.

You're not understanding his premise, while somehow I'm getting it
without any extra explanations. He is turning left, so he rolls into
the box under green. There is no traffic on the road onto which he's
turning, but there is oncoming traffic preventing him from completing
his maneuver. As soon as there is a break in oncoming traffic, or the
oncoming traffic stops, he completes the manuever, safely and legally.

The alternative is to sit behind the stop line until the heat death of
the universe (or, more likely, traffic eases up around 8-9 PM or so.
But even so, that's a long time to wait when it's morning rush hour.)

>>
>>>> It is always legal to still be moving through the intersection under
>>>> red as long as you entered before the red and can exit.
>>> That is a mistake.
>>
>> No, that's the laws of physics. They cannot be violated, and traffic
>> laws need to reflect the reality of physics.
>
> Law of physics says if the intersection is properly engineered and you
> stop-if-able (see "go point") you won't be in the intersection on the red.

No, you won't *enter* the intersection on red. Which is illegal. You
might *be* in the intersection on red for a brief moment - but that's
OK, so long as you didn't *enter* on red, and there's room for you on
the other side of the intersection.

>
> But I see that I am doing someting tat I know not to do--discuss
> religion in the froups.

It ain't religion, it's simple engineering.

> I'm out.

Um, OK. I'm OK with that, because I honestly can't imagine what
logical line of reasoning led you to your conclusions about the proper
way to treat a traffic signal.

nate

On Aug 31, 7:14*pm, Clark F Morris > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:55:41 -0700 (PDT), "
>
> > 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,.
>
> At the two intersections in Newark listed, I am fairly certain the
> yellow cycle is legal.

It may be legal, but is it proper. There is a difference. :-)

In Denver, three seconds was legal but it was ill-advised on 45-mph
corridors.

They should at least follow the ITE formula for yellow change interval
setting, and use actual speed surveys instead of the posted speed
limits.

On Aug 31, 4:29*pm, " > wrote:

> 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,

Interesting. Around here the first full second (or more) of red is a
grace period and no ticket is issued.

On Aug 31, 7:23*pm, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Drivers should never be slowing down for a green light.
>
> There are one or two safety experts who disagree.

I question their credentials then. Slowing down from free flow while
approaching a green light induces congestion, unsafe speed
differentials and potential accidents.

> I am not a credentialed expert anything but I have long believed that a
> stale green is a signal to be prepared to stop. *I don't put my foot on
> the brake (unconventional spelling) and I am quick back on the gas if
> the yellow light does not come on before my go point.

Why slow down at all? You've just created a traffic hazard for
following vehicles. If the yellow is properly timed, you will be able
to react and stop, or continue safely if too close to stop, while
maintaining corridor flow.

Your suggestion is like telling people who step off an escalator to
hesitate momentarily when they get off the moving steps before they
continue. That causes potential problems for the people behind you.

> (I don't know a better term--my "go point is a place ahead of me where a
> zone that I can't do anything about anything begins. *A place where I am
> going to hit what ever gets in front of me--and the go point is one
> where if the light has not started to change, I'm going, even if it
> quick-changes on me, because the reaction time distance and stop
> distances will put me in the middle of the intersection or beyond. *And
> if I am "going" I don't to confuse anybody by looking like I am stopping.)

But if you keep going at speed, you get through without causing any
problem for following traffic and don't have to worry about the red.
Why slow down at all? Makes no sense.

> And by the way, at many intersections here including some where you
> expect people to run the red light if your are smart there are flashing
> yellow lights that come on ahead of the signal--and while I have never
> tried it, I believe that an approach speed of twice the speed limit will
> still get you to a place where you will get to see the red light come on
> before crossing the limit line. *(At normal speeds, if you see the
> flashing yellow lights start, expect to see the yellow ball at about the
> time to make a tidy stop.)

We have some of those here, mostly on problematic signals like
downhill grade approaches where stopping distance is greater.

Pedestrian countdown signals also are a big help although engineers
will tell you not to look at them!

On Aug 31, 4:43*pm, " > wrote:

> 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.

If you have a long enough cycle for one side, the other side will have
a very long wait. You can't violate the laws of physics when too many
cars want to cross the same piece of ground.



> > 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.

Lots of places, such as where a small street crosses a major highway.
Traffic on the main highway gets priority to keep moving, while the
side street must wait. During rush hours the side streets can back
up.




> > 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.

Sure a driver can enter a yellow, but a driver from a distance is able
to stop and is supposed to stop. The driver doesn't _want_ to stop.

On Aug 31, 5:22*pm, "Dave" > wrote:

> 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. *

Just out of curiosity, have you ever stood, for a long time, at the
corner of a _major_ intersection of congested highways and watched the
traffic flow and signal cycles?

It looks very different from that point of view than that of a
motorist.

If you can view the intersection from an elevated vantage point it's
yet another point of view, especially if several major intersections
are in view.

wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:23 pm, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Drivers should never be slowing down for a green light.
>> There are one or two safety experts who disagree.
Ever hear of "The Smith System"? The Automobile Club of Southern
California? The National Safety Council?

I said I was out--but I could not let that one go.

On Aug 31, 7:31*pm, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
> wrote:
> >> I can't find a source for the VC here, but lots of people won't cross
> >> the limit line on a left turn if there is conflicting traffic.
>
> > That is a bad habit, IMO. I always stake out my left turn in the box
> > on green. At busy locations where there is no protected left phase, it
> > is in fact necessary to do so or you would never get through.
>
> In the twenty years I have lived here, I have been told a dozen times
> that that is illegal here.

Where is that? There is nowhere I am aware of where that is illegal,
and in fact is the necessary way to make turns in some locations where
opposing traffic is steady and there is no left arrow. There are some
turns on Colorado Boulevard in Denver where, if you stayed behind the
line on green and waited, you'd be there all afternoon.

> As I said, I have never been able to find a way of accessing the VC here
> without buying the whole (several hundreds of dollars worth) shelf of
> books, so I don't actually know what the law says.

You can do a VC search online by keyword. Are you in California? I
know for a fact that what I am saying is legal in California.

> > Not at all. There are many suburban and even urban intersections with
> > such large geometry that it is in fact impossible to be out of the box
> > by the time the red comes on even if you've entered on green let alone
> > yellow. And this is not a problem, it's to be expected. that's why we
> > have the clearance all-red phase.
>
> Bad engineering.

No way. It's proper and prudent engineering. It takes so long to make
the left turn due to the huge distances involved (I am thinking of the
triple left at Arapahoe and Parker roads) that if you left the yellow
phase on in place of an all red clearance, it would merely induce more
traffic to continue the turn. A left-arrow yellow phase should not be
four or five seconds long, it should be timed for approach speed,
which in a left turn is generally lower than the through lanes.

> Pure and simple.

Here it is:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...00284&t=h&z=19

The eastbound to northbound triple left has to cover so much real
estate that, as I said, cars can enter on green and still be in the
box on red. If engineers left the yellow on longer, it would only pull
more traffic in behind it. The all red clearance phase is proper
engineering.

This may be mooted by a planned project to make this a grade separated
urban interchange.

> >> *With
> >> defensive driving, reasonable speed, attention to the situation and
> >> such, it is easy to do.
>
> > Nope. I get caught in it all the time, at slow speeds, on protected
> > lefts. Three-second yellows after I entered on green arrow, and I am
> > still exiting the box when the red arrow comes on.
>
> Shouldn't have entered the intersection until you are assured of being
> able to exit it.

You completely misstate the premise, sorry you misunderstood. I *am*
assured of being able to exit, as there is no traffic backed up to the
left. I am proceeding on my protected left. I would be violating the
law if I did NOT proceed immediately. I would be blocking traffic.

>*You are a gridlock waiting to happen.

You completely misunderstood.

There is no gridlock question. There is no traffic congestion here,
there is simply an unobstructed protected left turn arrow.

> >>> It is always legal to still be moving through the intersection under
> >>> red as long as you entered before the red and can exit.
> >> That is a mistake.
>
> > No, that's the laws of physics. They cannot be violated, and traffic
> > laws need to reflect the reality of physics.
>
> Law of physics says if the intersection is properly engineered and you
> stop-if-able (see "go point") you won't be in the intersection on the red..

That's completely untrue at many large intersections, and even at
small ones if the yellow phase is too short.

The law is written so as to expect and anticipate that traffic will be
in the intersection legally when the light turns to red. You are only
obligated to stop on red if you have not yet crossed the stop bar.

> But I see that I am doing someting tat I know not to do--discuss
> religion in the froups.

I don't understand that. I believe in proper engineering. Too many
locations are not properly engineered, and the politicians turn to
revenue cameras instead of instructing the engineers to go for safety
first. Cameras without proper yellow timing are unsafe.

I did a bad job of pruning this for my response.

Take 2

wrote:
> On Aug 31, 7:23 pm, Larry Sheldon > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Drivers should never be slowing down for a green light.
>> There are one or two safety experts who disagree.
>
> I question their credentials then.

Ever hear of "The Smith System"? The Automobile Club of Southern
California? The National Safety Council?

I said I was out--but I could not let that one go.

On Aug 31, 7:46*pm, N8N > wrote:
> Larry Sheldon wrote:

>

> >>> *With
> >>> defensive driving, reasonable speed, attention to the situation and
> >>> such, it is easy to do.
>
> >> Nope. I get caught in it all the time, at slow speeds, on protected
> >> lefts. Three-second yellows after I entered on green arrow, and I am
> >> still exiting the box when the red arrow comes on.
>
> > Shouldn't have entered the intersection until you are assured of being
> > able to exit it. *You are a gridlock waiting to happen.
>
> You're not understanding his premise, while somehow I'm getting it
> without any extra explanations. *He is turning left, so he rolls into
> the box under green. *There is no traffic on the road onto which he's
> turning, but there is oncoming traffic preventing him from completing
> his maneuver. *As soon as there is a break in oncoming traffic, or the
> oncoming traffic stops, he completes the manuever, safely and legally.

Actually it's even more clear cut than that; the example being
discussed was a protected left arrow turn, not permissive left!