Tale Of The 3-Second Yellow Light

CBS News ^ | June 12, 2003

[JTN]

(CBS) John Irving knew he had been caught. He knew a traffic camera had seen him run a red light, but he also thought the yellow light had turned red too fast. So he returned to the busy intersection and timed it.

His findings: 2.7 seconds.

"Not even three seconds," he says.

Three seconds, when every other yellow light on the stretch of road was four seconds long. In other words, as he drove the street, the yellow lights in order lasted four, four, four and out of nowhere three seconds.

"It's a blink of an eye - a $70 blink of an eye," says Irving.

Many communities around the country are using cameras to try to stop drivers from running red lights. It's a safety issue, yes, but drivers like Irving are say it's really about making money for local governments.

Why this light in Bethesda was three seconds might have a million dollar answer. Literally. This one traffic camera earned the county $1 million in fines over 14 months.

"It shocked me," he says. "And the only explanation for it is that light is a trick. And law enforcement shouldn't be a trick."

Lon Anderson of the Triple A's mid Atlantic office complains too many traffic cams today are money scams for the cities that put them up.

Washington D.C. collected big on an odd double yellow light that turns red when it's not even at an intersection. In Baltimore, Anderson says, you can get a red light ticket by missing the light by one tenth of a second.

These systems can work, but why can't they work without tricking them? Why can't they work without gimmicks?

But County Executive Doug Duncan calls traffic cameras essential in an era when red light running is rampant.

"These are not traps, these are not tricks," says Duncan.

He says the cameras reduce red light running 40 to 70 per cent.

"Its a way to make people safe," says Duncan. "We put those cameras up at the intersections that are most dangerous."

Still, Duncan won't defend the three-second light.

When asked why that light is three seconds, Duncan laughs then adds, "I don't know, it should be the same as everywhere else."

He says he plans to change it.

Two days after CBS News taped this interview - and a year after Irving first complained, the county set all the lights on the stretch at 3.5 seconds. The county keeps to its belief the cameras are for safety -- so it plans to keep the $1 million.

[JTN]

Found this at The Agitator, who comments,

Studies show that lengthening yellows actually prevents more accidents than traffic cameras. But lengthening yellows doesn't generate millions for city coffers.

Politicians and cops sold us on traffic cameras under the guise of safety. Well, they sold you. The rest of us knew it was about revenue. Now you have neither safety nor freedom. They're making intersections more dangerous, and they're ticketing you every chance they get.

[mewzilla]

Yellow means slow down, not go faster.

[The G Man]

"Yellow means slow down, not go faster."

Remember that old bit from "Taxi" when Reverend Jim is taking his drivers test and the gang is helping him cheat. He whispers to them "What does a yellow light mean?" and they reply "Slow down." So Jim goes "Whaaaaaaaat ... dooooooooes ... a ... yellllllllow ... liiiiiiiiiiight .... meeeeeeeeeeeean?" And it kept going and going. A classic.

[redbaiter]

Make people safe by taking their money away from them. Tried & True technique of the Left, but popular with governments of every stripe.

Lockheed Martin was busted for fiddling with the lights and splitting the resulting take with municipalities.

[nygoose]

I thought yellow meant caution.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Great post. Where traffic laws are strictly enforced, revenues go up!! And that, my friend is the bottom line.

[vin-one]

He says the cameras reduce red light running 40 to 70 per cent.

I would like to know how they came up with these stats.
I think it is a BS number
if it reduced them by 70% you would think that every stop light someone would be running them.
pull a number out of the air, and everyone believes it.

[Hatteras]

You see the light turn yellow and you know what it indicates. Sooner, rather than later, the light will turn to red. If you are not exceeding the speed limit, you have ample time to stop.

But, of course, if your existance and on this planet is more important than anyone else's and you feel like your rights are being violated and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE F&*#KING ROAD SHOULD PULL OVER SO YOU CAN DO WHATEVER THE F%*# YOU PLEASE... then, by all means, take life by the short & curlies, go for it.

[Redwood71]

I have had a problem with this in Washington State. For the camera to picture someone who didn't have the opportunity to stop when travelling the maximum allowable speed limit, and the light hasn't been set to account for this, is stupid. To expect every light to change on you, means you are slowing to prevent ticketing. This creates a slowdown in traffic and another problem.

[thoughtomator]

Doesn't change the fact of a prima facie government-run extortion plot, and the probability that this is becoming (or has become) a common method of revenue production for local governments. Somewhere, someone forgot that the purpose of law is justice.

[judgeandjury]

Yellow means slow down, not go faster.

Actually a yellow light is simply a warning that the light will shortly turn red. A motorist is legally allowed to drive through a yellow light, provided it is safe for him to do so. If a motorist does decide to drive through a yellow light, there is no need for him to slow down as it would be no different than driving through a green light.

[AppyPappy]

You see the light turn yellow and you know what it indicates. Sooner, rather than later, the light will turn to red.

The problem is the sooner rather than the later

[Hatteras]

"...A motorist is legally allowed to drive through a yellow light, provided it is safe for him to do so."

...and besides, just start scratching the headliner above you. That usually adds that extra second you need to get through the intersection before it turns red. Works for me... ;-)

[Dr Warmoose]

I would be interested in knowing if rear-end collisions go up as people who worry about the short yellow lights slam on their brakes the instant the light turns yellow while the driver in the car behind was prepared to sail on through the intersection, or at least not test the anti-locks. With the increase in inattentive drivers on cell-phones and this new panic-hysteria over obscenely priced traffic fines implemented for raising city revenue, one begins to wonder if the body shop cartel has had a hand in lobbying for this foolishness.

I can't help but look for the typical "unintended consequences" that always seem to come after government elects to oppress the people with yet more burdensome mala prohibita laws accompianied with the over-the-top draconian enforcement.

What is more ridiculous is the proposition that this is "saving lives". By the mere fact that the city collected over a million in fines from that one intersection, it is clear that with or without cameras, people are crashing the light, thus the same problem of light crashing is just as dangerous, but now has become profitable for the city. IOW, the city profits when the intersections are made more dangerous (ie. shortening the yellow light duration). This would make government an accessory to the "crime" of crashing a red light, in that the four second lights previous were meant to train people to believe that the 2.7 second light was no different. Hence, it could be argued that government was trying to get more violators, and according to their logic based on the premise of "safety", that would mean that government was plotting to kill you (in a traffic accident) just so it can accomodate more "fact finding junkets" to the Carribean.

If anyone were to be injured in that 2.7 second intersection, then I can see a good line of argument to implicate the city in a deliberate campaign to maim and kill drivers for profit.

[killjoy]

For more information on this, go to: http://www.freedom.gov/auto/

Yes, that is a .GOV.

[Fudd]

Yellow does mean slow down. However, 2.7 seconds does not permit one to slow down safely from any legal posted speed.

It takes, depending on the driver, 0.5-1.0 seconds to just respond to a change in a traffic signal. For the sake of arguement, let's say the driver reacts in 0.7 seconds, leaving 2.0 seconds to brake. 35 mph is equivalent to roughly 40-45 feet per second. Deceleration will be 22 ft/sec^2, or roughly 2/3 G. Distance to stop is 45 feet - about 3 car lengths. This is what I would consider a panic stop.

[JTN]

If you are not exceeding the speed limit, you have ample time to stop.

Don't you see that the point of the story is that you don't? The Yellow light time was lowered in order to generate extra revenue. The purpose was not to decrease the running of red lights, but to increase it. Really, who's taking life by the short and curlies here? John Irving or the county cops?

[HEY4QDEMS]

I thought yellow meant caution.

I thought it meant French.

[Hatteras]

Maybe they ought to change green to mean yellow and yellow to mean green. People's reaction time (especially the young bucks who bitch & moan) seems to be much faster on the green light than on the yellow.

[1Old Pro]

Traffic cameras are for 1) REVENUE
2) Revenue
3)revenue