Red light cameras?

On Apr 23, 12:14*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

seconds. *I've pointed this out to the local constabulary, who pretend
not to understand the calculations, not to care, or both.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
#http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS

maybe the local press might be more interested in such information

On 4/22/2011 10:39 PM, Andy wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:16 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 4/22/2011 7:00 AM, raamman wrote:

from peopple following too closly behind and/or not paying complete
attention, especially during rush hours so I try to avoid hard stops;
but then this does subject me to a red light camera without regard to
the circumstances involved. I always pay attention to my surroundings,

The companies that install the cameras usually do it at no cost in
return for a cut of citation revenue. Therefore, the length of the
yellow light is often shortened to generate more revenue.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Please honor the signature separator (i.e. "-- ").

And the companies make 50% of the revenue.

That's pure greed, not a public service.

Hot Dog! We have a wiener!

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 04/22/2011 08:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:57 am, wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:44 pm, Frank wrote:

Who's in favor of red light cameras? Who's against?

Do you think a cycling organization should come out in favor of them?

This is a serious question, not a troll. I know a cycling
organization whose officers are trying to decide.

- Frank Krygowski

Definitely against, just because of the widespread practice of using
them at intersections with improperly timed yellow lights instead of
fixing the timing.

Implementations like VA where MUTCD-compliant light timing is required
for a RLC installation I don't have a real problem with, but I don't
know that they really accomplish much in those cases. But I'm not
opposed to that specific implementation if some jurisdiction wants to
try.

Does anyone here know the rules for yellow light timing?

I'd guess it would be based on time required to stop from the speed
limit, at a given moderate deceleration, plus reaction time. I'd
guess it would be in some standard in the form of a table or graph.
But I don't know. Anyone?

- Frank Krygowski

pretty much, yes.

this is obviously an anti-camera site but does give a good explanation
of the ITE guidelines, both old and new.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRe...sSiteHome.html

go to p. 12 of the report, or the original excerpts are in the references

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Frank Krygowski writes:

I'd guess it would be based on time required to stop from the speed
limit, at a given moderate deceleration, plus reaction time. I'd
guess it would be in some standard in the form of a table or graph.

I would hope that there would also be some requirement for the
length of the green light. Where I live in Redwood City, I've
occasionally come across lights where the green was only about
one second. There is not enough time to accelerate from a stop
and cross the intersection within the green+yellow time, on a
bike at least.

(Usually this is late at night when there is very little traffic
anyhow.)
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org

On Apr 23, 6:49*pm, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:
I'd guess it would be based on time required to stop from the speed
limit, at a given moderate deceleration, plus reaction time. *I'd
guess it would be in some standard in the form of a table or graph.

I would hope that there would also be some requirement for the
length of the green light. *Where I live in Redwood City, I've
occasionally come across lights where the green was only about
one second. *There is not enough time to accelerate from a stop
and cross the intersection within the green+yellow time, on a
bike at least.

(Usually this is late at night when there is very little traffic
anyhow.)
--
Ben Pfaffhttp://benpfaff.org

I guess that makes you fair game if you are caught not having
completed the crossing; I wonder if those who are responsible would
like to have members of their family walk across such intersections ?
seriously, people have to be held accoutable for their actions

On 04/23/2011 08:14 PM, raamman wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:49 pm, Ben wrote:
Frank writes:
I'd guess it would be based on time required to stop from the speed
limit, at a given moderate deceleration, plus reaction time. I'd
guess it would be in some standard in the form of a table or graph.

I would hope that there would also be some requirement for the
length of the green light. Where I live in Redwood City, I've
occasionally come across lights where the green was only about
one second. There is not enough time to accelerate from a stop
and cross the intersection within the green+yellow time, on a
bike at least.

(Usually this is late at night when there is very little traffic
anyhow.)
--
Ben Pfaffhttp://benpfaff.org

I guess that makes you fair game if you are caught not having
completed the crossing; I wonder if those who are responsible would
like to have members of their family walk across such intersections ?
seriously, people have to be held accoutable for their actions

It's not legal to be *in* an intersection on red; only to *enter* on
red. (there's one state where that isn't the case - Louisiana maybe?)
If you think about it it makes sense; the yellow light is basically
there to tell you to stop. So its interval is primarily based on the
speed of approaching traffic, so a driver approaching @ full speed will
have a chance to stop before the light turns red, or alternately, will
be able to cross the stop line before the light turns red if he's past
the "point of no return" where stopping would require more than
comfortable deceleration, and makes the decision not to stop. An
all-red clearance interval can and should be used in situations where it
may take a vehicle a long time to clear an intersection (say, a 25 MPH
road crossing a six-lane road with turn lanes, so it takes a while to
get across but an overly long yellow interval may not be warranted.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 4/23/2011 7:24 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 04/23/2011 08:14 PM, raamman wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:49 pm, Ben wrote:
Frank writes:
I'd guess it would be based on time required to stop from the speed
limit, at a given moderate deceleration, plus reaction time. I'd
guess it would be in some standard in the form of a table or graph.

I would hope that there would also be some requirement for the
length of the green light. Where I live in Redwood City, I've
occasionally come across lights where the green was only about
one second. There is not enough time to accelerate from a stop
and cross the intersection within the green+yellow time, on a
bike at least.

(Usually this is late at night when there is very little traffic
anyhow.)
--
Ben Pfaffhttp://benpfaff.org

I guess that makes you fair game if you are caught not having
completed the crossing; I wonder if those who are responsible would
like to have members of their family walk across such intersections ?
seriously, people have to be held accoutable for their actions

It's not legal to be *in* an intersection on red; only to *enter* on
red. (there's one state where that isn't the case - Louisiana maybe?) If
you think about it it makes sense; the yellow light is basically there
to tell you to stop. So its interval is primarily based on the speed of
approaching traffic, so a driver approaching @ full speed will have a
chance to stop before the light turns red, or alternately, will be able
to cross the stop line before the light turns red if he's past the
"point of no return" where stopping would require more than comfortable
deceleration, and makes the decision not to stop. An all-red clearance
interval can and should be used in situations where it may take a
vehicle a long time to clear an intersection (say, a 25 MPH road
crossing a six-lane road with turn lanes, so it takes a while to get
across but an overly long yellow interval may not be warranted.)

Did you mean to write, "It is legal to be in the intersection on a red
light, but illegal to enter the intersection on a red light"?

Most states allow the above, as otherwise turning left could be nearly
impossible where there is not a dedicated left turn light.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Who's in favor of red light cameras? Who's against?

=v= I favor use of the technology because a major factor
in motorist misbehavior is the presumption of anonymity.
Thwarting that and -- *gasp!* -- actually holding someone
responsible for their actions is a *good* thing.

=v= I'm not too fond of the privatization of deployment,
though. See below.

... and setting up revenue-enhancement situations ...

=v= The phrase "revenue-enhancement" has been used over and
over, decades before this technology existed. The notion
seems to hinge on the bizarre notion that speeding doesn't
actually have any financial impact. In fact about 30% of
the budgets of police, fire, and emergency services are
caused by cars, most of that by speeding. "Enhancement"
is thoroughly the wrong word to describe those at fault.

=v= Fines should go to the municipalities that have these
very real costs, though, not to Lockheed Martin.
_Jym_

It's not legal to be *in* an intersection on red; only
to *enter* on red.

=v= Totally wrong.

=v= A yellow light means stop, unless it is unsafe to do so.
This law is pretty much universally ignored. In any event,
you are not supposed to enter an intersection if you can't
exit it without obstructing other vehicles when *they* get
a green light. This was part of the huge batch of nationwide
changes deployed 30 years ago (the most famous of these being
right turn on red), and is CVC 22526 in California.
_Jym_

On 04/24/2011 04:36 AM, Jym Dyer wrote:
Who's in favor of red light cameras? Who's against?

=v= I favor use of the technology because a major factor
in motorist misbehavior is the presumption of anonymity.
Thwarting that and -- *gasp!* -- actually holding someone
responsible for their actions is a *good* thing.

=v= I'm not too fond of the privatization of deployment,
though. See below.

... and setting up revenue-enhancement situations ...

=v= The phrase "revenue-enhancement" has been used over and
over, decades before this technology existed. The notion
seems to hinge on the bizarre notion that speeding doesn't
actually have any financial impact. In fact about 30% of
the budgets of police, fire, and emergency services are
caused by cars, most of that by speeding. "Enhancement"
is thoroughly the wrong word to describe those at fault.

=v= Fines should go to the municipalities that have these
very real costs, though, not to Lockheed Martin.
_Jym_

Not to be argumentative and off topic, but do you have any data to
support your claim that speeding is the cause of so much cost? Most
studies that I have seen point to factors *other* than speeding as the
cause of most incidents, at least when "speeding" is defined as "going
faster than the number posted on the sign" not "too fast for conditions"
which is usually significantly faster.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel