Posted on 02/16/2011 1:59:14 PM PST by Ken H
I’d check the yellow light times too. Slightly lenghtening yellow light times increases safety and reduces red light runners. However, in conjunction with a red light camera system, yellow light times are often reduced in order to increase the number of red light runners so the system will reap more profit. That is also likely to produce more accidents, but we knew this was about profit, not safety, anyway.
It seems to be borne out by statistics that the majority of people who run red lights are simply reacting to poorly-engineered signaling and intersection layout. I remember seeing a photo of a sign that said "Signals Timed to Insure Frequent Stops" or something like that - certainly an extreme case, but you see what I'm getting at.
The fact that cities will reduce the yellow time at intersections where red light cameras have been installed should give you a pretty strong hint as to what's really going on.
Double-check to insure that the information you're getting about red-light running isn't put out by shills for the ticket-camera manufacturers.
Adding the cameras doesn't increase the accidents. It's that most cities reduce yellow light time when they install the cameras. It's a basic fact of traffic engineering: reduce yellow light time, get more accidents.
The contract is still in force. ATS says the city isn’t mailing out any tickets, while the city is pointing to a clause in the contract that states ATS will follow all laws. Part of the law now is that for it to be a violation, it has to be witnessed by a leo. I don’t see how the city is breaching the contract by this.
The voters didn’t break the contract, they simply changed the law defining how running a red light can be considered a violation.
The irony here is delicious!!
When I lived in Houston during the early nineties, I always loved to read Leon Hale's column in the Chronicle. Several times he made the observation that you can tell newcomers to Houston, because they take off when the light turns green, instead of waiting for the red light runners to pass by.
I see that things haven't changed.
You root for both of them. As long as they are fighting over the real issue (money), they may not be victimizing (I repeat "MAY NOT").
And the cameras stop that how?
Baby girl drowns in mop bucketSan Antonio Express - Jazmine Ulloa - 4 days ago AP ENTERPRISE: No decision soon in Armstrong probe A 1-year-old girl drowned Friday afternoon when she climbed into a bucket her ...
|
Prudence demands that when one is stopped at an intersection, one not proceed until it is safe to do so. There are a variety of reasons why even a prudent motorist may sometimes enter an intersection very shortly after a light turns read (e.g. a motorist who is boxed in by large trucks may not be able to see the light at the moment it turns yellow); there is no reason, however, that a prudent motorist who sees a red light ahead should not be prepared to yield the right of way to any other motorist who would (rightfully or wrongfully) demand it.
If a motorist is uncertain whether he can safely stop behind an intersection, is it safer for the motorist to proceed at speed through the intersection, possibly entering it a second after his light turns red (but a second before the opposing light turns green), or is it safer for the motorist to attempt to stop and possibly entering the intersection somewhat slowly a few seconds later (after the opposing light has turned green)? If the installers of traffic camera systems were interested in safety, they would configure the systems so that someone who entered between the time one light went red and the other light went green would delay the opposing green signal, and they would charge different fines for courtesy violations and safety violations. Have you ever heard of any camera system that did those things?
I don’t run red lights and I don’t need cameras to prevent me from doing so.
If it made you think about the context, then my job is done.
Pass it on.
LOL! I’ll bet you don’t!
Screw ATS and may they either repent and get out of the red light ticket business or die slowly of parasitic infestations.
It does look like ATS blew it on this one. It’s very risky to take action against ‘customers’, and even more risky when you depend of more, similar, future ‘customers’.
They are making it much HARDER for cities to set up what amounts to tolling systems...which is only good for Americans.
“Houston shut down their redlight cameras. I saw a collision yesterday caused by a woman who ran a red light. “
I was hoping they’d bring the yellow light interval back to within spec, once the revenue engine was no longer running. I guess in your case, they hadn’t gotten to reprogramming that intersection yet.
“It finally dawned on those sharper citizens that the camera companies were taking 2/3 of the $75 fines.”
$75 red light fine??? Holy crap, I haven’t gotten a red light ticket in more years than I can recall, but here in CA I would bet you that those tickets are $175 dead minimum, and, the thing they do out here is to DOUBLE moving violation fines and add court costs. So such a ticket would be (guessing) $175 + $175 + $38 = $388. Oh yeah, easily.
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.