Posted on 11/20/2007 6:43:28 AM PST by jim_trent
I am curious as to what basis you had to claim the yellow light clearance interval was incorrect. There is an ITE formula for yellow light intervals (which takes into account speed limit, uphill or downhill, coefficient of friction, width of intersection, etc) which generally gives between 3 and 5 seconds as a correct time. Anything other than that time has no basis in fact or actual results. It is:
Yellow interval = t + (V / (2a + 64.4g)) + ((W + L) / V)
That is the whole purpose of the cameras.
The nanny state always give you this bargain - less of you will be in danger but you will have to give up some freedom. If we had police monitoring cameras at every street corner crime would certainly drop but I would rather take my chances unobserved.
Please see post 17.
I walked into traffic court with CT and National DOT documents.
Plus, I spent a Sunday recording people running the light every time it changed and timed all other lights near the light in question [they were fine] the light I ran was off by a large margin.
It was dangerous - still is.
You might want to see post 21. There is a standard. There is no reputable study (ie: peer reviewed) that says that increasing the yellow interval will substantially reduce accidents. I
have been pointed to a reputable study by several people here (in the past) that does advocate increasing the interval. But when you actually read the report (instead of just googling a few key words), it only advocates changing the maximum time interval of 5 seconds (which is now used) to 5-1/2 seconds. Not a big change. The evidence that this will make ANY change in accident statistics is pretty slim. At best, the author proved that extending the yellow interval would not increase accidents.
Well, I'd rather have those cops fighting real crime, then going through the rigmarole of writing out tickets for moving violations.
What's the big damn deal about this? Obey the law and don't run red lights. IMO...I see no rights infringed by the stop light cameras. This is more of a tool being used for law enforcement, not a nanny state surveillance/NWO-like purpose. One is still free to run red lights...but its going to be alot harder to do that and not pay the consequences.
I replied to your first post before seeing this one. That is a simplified formula, but it is correct. If it did not meet that, you should have complained. Congratulations on getting it correct even if most on this webpage don’t.
Increasing the yellow-interval above that recommended by the ITE formula (usually considered to be between 3 and 5 seconds) does not increase safety. In fact, it can decrease safety. Numerous studies have shown that increasing the yellow-interval above that recommended by ITE may briefly reduce accidents. However, within a short period of time (ranging from 3 months to a year), drivers familiar with the intersection will learn of the longer yellow-interval and abuse it (the tendency for motorists to do this is referred to as ‘habituation’ in the literature). Afterward, the initial reduction in accidents will disappear and the safety at the intersection will drop to its previous level or become even worse.
And, yes, I do know of that ONE paper that indicates a yellow-indication of 5.5 seconds will slightly increase safety long term (see *). However, even that researcher does not recommend a yellow-interval longer than 5.5 seconds so, at most, we are arguing about 1/2 of a second. Only un-credentialed crackpots have suggested longer yellow-intervals. None of them have published anything that has survived peer review.
http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/studies/TRB2004-001228.pdf *
http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/4027-2.pdf
http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-000136.pdf
http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-000943.pdf
http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-000285.pdf
http://stc.utk.edu/htm/pdf%20files/red.pdf
http://www.uritc.uri.edu/media/finalreportspdf/536146.pdf
etc.
“”Congratulations on getting it correct even if most on this webpage don’t.””
At court on pre-hearing, an Assistant DA [if I remember her position right] was so amazed at my research that she asked for copies - I gave her the whole inch and half of paperwork.
Ticket was dismissed.
Went to the town and filed a complaint.
Light is still dangerous now - This happened to me in 2002!
For those who complain about the cameras - you brought it on yourself.
Exactly. People forget that driving is a privilege and not a right. Drivers are expected to drive safely and those who do not should not be allowed to drive.
Only half the money goes to the general fund. The other half goes to a private corporation, probably located out of state.
It pays to be in private industry as our government is up for sale to the most connected “bidder”.
Why stop at red light cameras ticketing runners?
Let’s also look inside the windshield for people who aren’t wearing seat belts. Don’t want a ticket? Wear your belt.
And let’s also look for expired inspection stickers. It’s the law.
And how about minors out after curfew? “You were photographed out at...”.
Everyone stops at red lights. Why not take a whole lot more pictures?
The cops won’t fight real crime. Too dangerous. They aren’t peace officers anymore. They are law enforcement officers.
They serve to write tickets to fund the city. Where have you been?
Yes and police officers who are not on a call, Metro bus drivers, school bus drivers, and plenty of other people on the public workforce are learning this and being finally asked to pay THEIR fines. You see, the private company that runs such cameras doesn't care WHO the violator is. They want their cut.
“Well, I’d rather have those cops fighting real crime, then going through the rigmarole of writing out tickets for moving violations.”
It is real crime and it results in real deaths. Traffic stops are among the most dangerous activities for officers but it also results in many arrests for crimes unrelated to the traffic offense based on warrants they find.
“What’s the big damn deal about this? Obey the law and don’t run red lights. IMO...I see no rights infringed by the stop light cameras”
I don’t run red lights and wish other people didn’t. The big deal is the govts are using companies to run these things. Their sole purpose is revenue generation and not actual safety or law enforcement.
“This is more of a tool being used for law enforcement, not a nanny state surveillance/NWO-like purpose.”
Soon we’ll be under surveilance from the time we are born until we die. Those cameras will mostly be used to modify our behavior on things the government doesnt like.
“And how about minors out after curfew? “You were photographed out at...”.”
A couple years ago I received a letter from the county traffic department. It stated I was observed at a particular place at a particular time. It provided the time and place where I had been driving. For a traffic study they asked me to provide where I was going, where I was coming from, the purpose of my trip and who I was meeting.
“I am curious as to what basis you had to claim the yellow light clearance interval was incorrect.”
They discovered that by making the interval shorter they could collect more in fines.
Exactly. Running - actually running, not misjudging by a fraction of a second - red lights is very serious. If this were about safety, there wouldn't be a fine there would be a license revocation.
I think no single step would do more for traffic safety than removing fines entirely. That would change traffic enforcement from "catch the most drivers" to "catch the most dangerous drivers".
money from the tickets that is cut for City of Dallas
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.