Slashdot Log In
Cities Tampering With Traffic Lights To Generate Revenue
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:51 PM
from the hey-we-don't-have-to-pay-the-hospital-bills dept.
from the hey-we-don't-have-to-pay-the-hospital-bills dept.
Techdirt is reporting that there has been a rash of reports indicating that red light cameras are being used to generate revenue rather than to promote safety. "Time and time again studies have shown that if cities really wanted to make traffic crossings safer there's a very simple way to do so: increase the length of the yellow light and make sure there's a pause before the cross traffic light turns green (this is done in some places, but not in many others). Tragically, it looks like some cities are doing the opposite! Jeff Nolan points out that six US cities have been caught decreasing the length of the yellow light below the legal limits in an effort to catch more drivers running red lights and [increase] revenue."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Mississippi Passes Law To Ban Traffic Light Cameras 629 comments
DaGoatSpanka writes with news that Mississippi Governer Haley Barbour signed a bill into law on Friday which instituted a ban on automated cameras that would snap pictures of motorists when they ran red lights. "The new law says the two cities that already have the cameras, Jackson and Columbus, must take them down by Oct. 1. Other cities and counties are banned from starting to use them." We've discussed situations in the past where cities looked at such cameras as "profit centers," and even tampered with their traffic light timing to catch more motorists. Now, in Mississippi, the contractors who installed the cameras are unhappy, since they received a cut of the ticket revenue generated by the cameras. However, lawmakers overwhelming voted to get rid of them (117-3 in the House, 42-9 in the Senate), because "the cameras were an invasion of privacy and their constituents thought they had been unfairly ticketed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Suppose I'm used to yellow lights lasting 6 seconds, and I know I can get through the light in 5 seconds. Now the city changes the yellow light length to 3 seconds, without warning. Do I have a choice then?
I really really hate people who run red lights. But I hate entrapment more.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Suppose I'm used to yellow lights lasting 6 seconds, and I know I can get through the light in 5 seconds. Now the city changes the yellow light length to 3 seconds, without warning. Do I have a choice then?
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
if the light turns yellow when you've hit the "point of no return", the light will be red before you get out of the intersection, resulting in city_revenue++.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's one of the big problems with cameras. They have to be programmed on some hard basis like "picture gets taken when light goes red." Also, since the camera companies get a cut of the profits, there is incentive to get as many as possible.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you can't reasonably stop, you're supposed to go through, because coming to a screeching halt in the middle of the intersection is worse.
If they shorten the yellow light to the point where you can neither stop, nor go through the light, then yeah you might as well ditch the yellow light because that defeats the entire purpose. Because then you don't have a choice to do something safe.
Do you know how they determine the length that the yellow light should be? Basically, the make some assumptions about a car's typical breaking power and the posted speed limit, and measure how close to the light a car can be before it can stop "reasonably". Then, they calculate how long it would take to get from that point through the intersection at the speed limit. Tack on some time for human reaction time and the time needed to make the break/go on judgment call, and you've got the minimum safe yellow light time.
And then they pass a law that says you can't have a yellow light time shorten than that for a given speed limit.
And then these money-grubbing municipalities shorten the yellow light below that time.
What part of this is defensible to you?
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Informative)
If you see the light turn yellow, so can the people behind you and it is totally their fault if they rear-end you.
I understand and agree with you that the learned behavior of most people is to try to gun their engines when the light turns yellow. However, that behavior is still wrong, ultimately, and causes accidents for the reason I stated above.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Informative)
Yelow means "clear the intersection".
It doens't mean "slam on your brakes" and it doesn't mean "floor it".
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say two car lengths is about 40 feet (we're generously assuming really big cars). At 35, you *might* be able to come to a stop if you have ABS and lay on the brakes as hard as you can, but it's hardly an optimal condition. At 45 mph, there aren't too many cars that will do it, period. Above that, it's simply not reasonable.
The officer that pulled you over doesn't know what he's talking about, and is probably confusing the "two second" rule that applies when following because stopping distance naturally changes with speed. At 45 mph, that two seconds equates to more than 130 feet, or about seven car lengths, and that assumes that you're not dealing with a fixed limit (a gradually slowing car vs. a static stop line). I guess this all just goes to prove that traffic enforcement has always been and will likely always be a cash cow for municipalities, safety be damned.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I am arguing against is the idea that yellow means "floor the gas". The people arguing on this thread are complaining about how taking off a couple of seconds means they no longer can make it through the intersection when their duty was to stop rather than try to push the envelope.
I think you're arguing with yourself on that point. Everybody else is saying this:
When the light turns yellow, at some speed under the speed limit, I have two legal choices: brake or don't brake. Let's assume that gunning it isn't even an option. At some distance from the light you will not be able to safely stop in time to avoid ending up in the intersection. In those situations, you should continue going under yellow. Problem is, if the light's too short, there may be a certain region where you can't make it through without accelerating OR brake in time without ending up in the intersection. That's what people are trying to point out - it's not that people are trying to 'push it', it's that the light can get short enough that there's no legal, safe choice. And that's bad.
The fact is, when jurisdictions start playing with the yellow interval like that, rear-end accidents go way up. So the people who jam on the brakes in an attempt to not get ticketed just get rear ended. That shouldn't occur, and I think those people in particular should have legal recourse against the city/county.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
"I watched you very carefully. Red means stop, green means go, yellow means go-very-fast."
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
From these experiences, I can tell you that the rules of traffic lights are very simple:
Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
4. Profit!
That is the whole point of the article. Cities are making a profit doing this. Finally, a use for "4. Profit!" that isn't offtopic.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! Show a little respect. Roscoe has to get his revenue money somehow. He goes through 5 to 10 cop cars a day. You think after a while he'd start to notice those pre-fabricated ramps someone keeps putting all over the roads in Hazard County.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Traffic safety laws should be about just that: traffic safety. They shouldn't be a backdoor tax. If we want optimal traffic safety solutions to be chosen, we have to eliminate the financial incentive for suboptimal ones.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
The insurance industry and several other groups are opposed to eliminating the state law because they think there will be more rear-end collisions resulting from traffic cameras, precisely because studies done in other cities with traffic cameras actually bear this out. People don't want a ticket, so they slam on their brakes to stop, short yellow or no. OTOH, the studies show that there would be fewer T-bone collisions, which are the most common types of accidents involving intersections and amongst the most lethal.
So, they could always just use the fewer "T-bone" accidents as an excuse, and I think this is, in fact, what many cities have done in order to get the traffic cameras.
Welcome to 1984, citizen. Big Brother is watching you.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Informative)
It's hard for the camera companies to make any money (and pay for the cameras) if you have to give 100% to someone else.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is fully about revenue generation. It HAS to be, since it is a private company running the show. A private company is not out for the public good, it is out to make money.
This will end up costing you (citizen of the city/state) even more in the long run with increased insurance rates.
Sure, they tell you to pay the fine, and nothing goes on your record...HOWEVER, the statistic of a moving violation goes on the record. If you take into account the shortening of yellow light times just to raise the number of 'red light' violations for revenue...you are generating more and more statistics that your city/state has a severe problem with moving violations.
Guess what? Insurance companies base their rates on statistics like accidents and violation rates of the city/state. Yes...they will see this and happily jack everyone's insurance rates up, and will be happy to do it. Yep...you just gave the insurance companies a free excuse to make more money off the citizenry.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that's correct. We have redlight cameras in some Missouri cities and they're also operated by private companies and the cities get tiny portion of the fines. However if you don't pay the fines nothing happens. I received a red light ticket over a year ago and nothing has shown up on my record, but if I don't pay a normal speeding ticket or other traffic ticket there's warrants out for arrest the day after I miss the court date or date the ticket's due.
I'm beginning to think the redlight cameras are wholly operated by the private companies and they don't have any court appointed right to issue warrants or do anything anymore than any other business owner. Only thing I've received were some nasty letters saying to pay the fine, it doesn't even show up on credit.
Oh and the 6 cities they mentioned aren't the only cities doing this. I know of several lights locally that are timed faster than normal. I feel like the cities are playing chicken with real people's lives, testing to see if we'll kill each other by shaving a second off the yellow light. That'd be funny on a video game, not so funny in real life.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Informative)
light cameras just as fast as they can get them up.
Police review the video footage of any
vehicle that triggers the camera. If you're found
to have committed the offense, the ticket is
generated and mailed to you. They also send a link
along to the video where you can watch yourself
blow the light
You normally won't see a ticket if the light
was still yellow on entering the intersection.
Most folks who are seeing the violations are
blatantly blasting through the intersection
after the light has gone red.
So the way the system is set up currently, you
can tell fairly quickly if the light is cycling
faster than it should and if you truly deserved
the citation.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Redlight cameras and the changing of the light timing is that people are getting burnt when there isn't enough time between the yellow light and for a normal person to come to a complete and safe stop. The entire idea of having to slam on the breaks to stop from running the light should be enough indication that either the posted speed limit is too fast or the light timing is too short.
After calculating a fraction of a second to allow for the driver to notice a yellow light, there should be enough time to come to a reasonable stop in any vehicle traveling on the roadway before the yellow goes red. That is just common sense. I mean following too close behind another vehicle is dictated by the speed and stopping distance plus reaction time of the vehicles. If the traffic lights don't at least figure that into the equation, it is rigged to rob people of their hard earned money.
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is the intersection:
_| |__
_____
| |
And you're traveling like this:
_| |__
>>_____
| |
Then as long as you cross THIS point before Red, the camera isn't tripped:
_| |__
>>_|____
| |
So the real issue with having short yellow lights is not that a person doesn't have enough time to stop or enough time to clear the intersection.
The problem is that people think they'll have enough time to get past that magic line before the light turns red (that the yellow will hold that long) so they hit their gas and the yellow is so short that it turns red before the car passes that point and thusly the camera is tripped.
At least, that's how I read it.
Parent
Re:Go to court, contest the fine, and show it w/ p (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not have ridiculously short yellow light durations
Put a short amount of time while changing where ALL lights are red
Be in it for the citizens, not for profit
Which do you see happening first?
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Informative)
A friend of my ex-wife once complained about being ticketed when she was in an accident. The light turned yellow, the driver in front of her stopped, and she rear-ended the other driver. Evil-X's friend was livid that the other driver had the gall to stop for a yellow light!
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever see the video where a group of vehicles decided to drive 55 MPH maximum (I think it was in the DC beltway). The result was some absurd traffic backup for miles.
If you combined a 55mph speed, with a following distance of every vehicle being able to stop if the car in front of them slammed on their brakes, the result would be that probably every highway on the Eastern seaboard would be gridlocked.
For most driving situations, you won't encounter a person slamming on their brakes for a situation that you cannot see in front of them. That is why these cameras are so dangerous, you create yet another situation where someone will slam on their brakes, for a condition that the car behind them can't predict (usually you can also see if a pedestrian walks out). It adds one more danger to the roads when it would actually be safer for the driveway to go through the intersection when it is yellow (which is what they are supposed to do if it is too late to stop when the yellow turns on)
Parent
A Meditation On The Speed Limit (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A Meditation On The Speed Limit (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoETMCosULQ [youtube.com]
And google video here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552067462745475 [google.com]
drew
Parent
Re:Grounds to contest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Bastards (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bastards (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on where you live.... (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest solution to decreasing accidents at intersections is actually not to increase the amber light and provide more delay before the cross street's green -- the biggest solution is to decrease the number of light cycles per day. The fewer cycles, the fewer accidents per day, even if the same number of accidents occur per cycle.
The trick is to measure the volume of through traffic on both streets per hour on weekdays and weekends and adjust the light timings accordingly, finding the "sweet spot" between causing congestion due to long waits and causing accidents due to short waits.
The long amber and green light delays are only an aid that can help tweak the system once these other factors are accounted for.
Of course, in many cities, the amber light is referred to by drivers as the "go faster" light -- having a long amber actually promotes speeding through intersections in such cities, and results in more pedestrian injuries and deaths.
Parent
Re:Depends on where you live.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Depends on where you live.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It was professional, courteous, and efficient. Why can't we do it? No long amber or green is required. Professional drivers make all the difference. I loved it. Returning to the states was very scary as the traffic would launch at a green light regardless if the intersection was clear!... Intersections are very dangerous here. It's not the lights. It's the professionalism. On another note.. If picked up for intoxicated driving, you got your first phone call after a 3 day dry out period. They have very little problems with repeat offenders.
Parent
As the quote goes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As the quote goes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The Six Cities are... (Score:5, Informative)
Actual story is at Motorists.org (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ [motorists.org]
So while indeed this is interesting, it is not particularly "new" nor "news." Cities have been doing this for over a decade, and they occasionally get caught, but more often than not, they do not. They will continue to push for the cameras since they generate virtually "free" revenue (free in the sense of little manpower and little initial investment cost).
Dallas bucks the trend (Score:5, Interesting)
To the surprise of just about everyone, the cameras worked! People actually started slowing down in time to stop if the light turned yellow. The city became safer.
But there was an inevitable downside... the cameras' revenue no longer supported their operating cost.
Once again, the unexpected happened. Dallas did NOT tweak yellow light timing to generate more tickets. Instead, they turned off some of the cameras. Apparently, the contract with the third-party camera operator has a clause that reduces the monthly charge from $3,800 per camera to "a fraction" of that cost (blame the Morning News for failing to tell whether that fraction is 1/10 or 9/10). So they're turning some of them off, noting that "most motorists won't realize this and behave as if the cameras are operational."
Which is what we wanted all along.
The city of Dallas is mired in several messes of its own making, resulting in high-profile FBI probes and even a suicide pact [dallasmetropolis.com] between two of its best-known (and most-troubled) behind-the-scenes power brokers. But in this case, the city comes shining through. And the Rangers won a double-header last night, too. Wonders never cease.
More info available from the Dallas Morning News [dallasnews.com] article.
More info NOT available from "theNewspaper.com", a self-described "journal of the politics of driving" that never hesitates to pass on a story of red light camera *abuse* [thenewspaper.com]. I sent a link to the DMN story, but it never showed up. Agenda much?
As a traffic engineer... (Score:5, Informative)
The All-Red interval should also be 3-6 seconds long, and should be based upon the geometry and size of the intersection, as well as the approach speeds. The purpose of the All-Red interval is to ensure that the intersection is clear of crossing traffic prior to assigning the Right-of-Way to a side street or pedestrian crossing. To determine the appropriate length of an All-Red interval, you need measure the distance from the stop line to the far side of the intersection (typically past the far crosswalk) and determine the approach speed. 30 m.p.h. = 44 ft/sec, so if the distance from the stop line to the far crosswalk is 88 feet, the appropriate All-Red interval would be 2 seconds. To be conservative, you can also add the length of a typical vehicle (~25 ft.) into the equation.
With that knowledge in hand, you may be able to fight a red light-running ticket if you believe the timing provided for you was too short. Those are the general guidelines across the US. Individual states, counties, and cities may have different criteria, though.
And cameras may even have a negative impact? (Score:5, Informative)
The city of Baltimore has been under constant scrutiny for red light camera policies that appear to be unsafe and/or in financial conflict with the public interest. In the report mentioned here [thenewspaper.com], Administrative Judge Keith "One T" Mathews wrote the following summary:
The one thing that red light cameras have always consistently accomplished, however, is revenue generation on a large scale.
Legal yellow times (Score:5, Interesting)
Posted Speed or Prima Facie Speed Minimum Yellow Interval
MPH KPH Yellow SECONDS
25 40 3.0
30 48 3.2
35 56 3.6
40 64 3.9
45 72 4.3
50 80 4.7
55 89 5.0
60 97 5.4
65 105 5.8
Sorry, the lameness filter prevents this from being easily read.
Re:How about personal responsibility? (Score:5, Funny)
you mean drivers speed through as the light at the top turns grey whilst all the others have to wait at the grey light?
Parent