Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

I would probably be an advocate of RLC's as folks blow through a lot of intersections around here on red. I think they would do some good if we had them here. The problem I have is with the officials who change the rules when the revenue drops which has been well documented.

Over the years I have been on this site, I have challenged any number of posters who implied that it was common for "officials who change the rules when the revenue drops".

So, I will challenge once again. It has been and is not common.

In all the years, we found one city - Oakland - that shortened yellow lights to increase revenue (even though these shortened yellows were still at or above the minimums required, as I recall).

Maybe RLCs can be modified to take license plates as well as the front window of the the driver on the cell phone while running the red light.

As long as it is being used a deterrent tool then fine....the revenue generated from RLC should go to fixing roadway and supporting health care system

We have to consider the red light camera as part of a whole process were the picture is just the beginning...if the law acts correctly there is not a problem for me.

If you remain fairly attentive (and assuming that the yellow times haven't been shortened) you should be able to stop safely on the Stop Line. Watch for the things that happen even before the signal turns yellow, such as the pedestrian crossing turning yellow or the pedestrian count down time activating.

If I see either of these, I am prepared for the signal to go yellow. It doesn't mean you have to stop, but you can decide your course of action depending on how far you are from the intersection. If you're close, maintain a safe speed and you should be able to get through, without any need to accelerate.

If you're a distance back, touch the brake to warn the idiot that's about to accelerate.

I was driving recently and the light turned yellow and I was easily able to stop. The idiot several cars back of me, in the right hand lane crossed the stop line, just as the light turned red and I'm guessing he blew through at 80-100 kph (50-60 mph) in a 60 kph (40 mph zone).

These people are what cause the accidents, not the red light cameras (again assuming that the yellow times haven't been shortened)

I think experience has shown that they are pretty much always abused.

i hate red light cameras

I was out bike riding a half hour ago and I came to a traffic light by the local high school. It turned red up ahead and car was preparing to pull out onto the road on the green light they had. Passing by me at full clip was a dump truck that never even tapped on its brakes. It just plowed along at normal speed and sailed through the red light that had been red a good five seconds. Luckily, the car noticed this truck barreling down at full speed and she stopped before she was in its path. I was just dumbfounded at the total disregard for the traffic signal by the driver of the truck. I wish there had been an RLC at that intersection. I am just glad I did not have to be a witness to what would have been a nasty accident.

The driver of the dump truck should have points on his/her license not civil fine in which RLC camera is. As long RLC camera is a civil crime not criminal then driver will just paying the fine.

When cities dropped its RLC because it said its serve its purpose and not declining revenue. If RLC camera is really detergent. I purpose to put all RLC in all intersection in the country.

Of course, the discussion hinges on the definition of "abuse" but considering that there are over 4,400 cameras in our file, and that there are very few active stories claiming "abuse", the facts do not support your statement.

You are entitled to you own opinion but not to your own set of facts. You have said "they are pretty much always abused".

If that is you opinion, so be it.

If you think such to be the fact, then please cite the recent reports that place over 2,200 in a places where "abuse" has been documented.

I think personally they are a good thing.

Here in Philadelphia, PA most of the RLC intersections have the pedestrian walk/don't walk count down timer. (I've only come across one that doesn't) When the timer hits 0 the light goes yellow.

I have limited experience with RLC, but in Waterloo Region, Ontario, we have seen no evidence that the region has diddled with the yellows.

Generally speaking, I think the Canadian approach to traffic enforcement is considerably different than in America.

In Alberta, with the exception of the largest cities, traffic enforcement is handled by the RCMP or provincial Highway Patrol. Municipalities do not directly receive revenue from traffic fines - and even then a portion is directed to victims services and provincial coffers. So there is no "perceived" incentive to set up speed traps or play with the timing of yellow lights.

Calgary, Edmonton and other cities do issue tickets through photo enforcement - and they bring in tons of money. But they also announce where the cameras are located, so drivers should be aware of them.

Of course, they should also be aware of the speed limits and rules for flying through intersections

So we are different... not necessarily better - just different.

In Florida, the biggest problem I have with red light traffic cameras is making right turns on a red light when there are not signs prohibiting that type of turn. The laws contain a lot of ambiguity.

Since DrewDT posted this in 2009 I have had LOTS of experience with Red Light Cameras in the USA and speed cameras in Italy. The red light cameras have cost me over a $1,000 as they are on practically every corner of my daily commute. The commute has gotten a lot longer as the average speed on the roadways is down to a crawl as people now drive much slower so they do not miss the opportunity to stop for free. The right hand turn lights are more onerous as you have to stop for 3 full seconds or trip the light. At best a couple of cars make it over each signal. Yes - the POI camera files have helped enormously to avoid tickets - but in bad weather there is often no choice but to roll on through rather than get rear ended.

While I have never had a stop light ticket issued to me, I now have lots of photos mailed to my house. So I would have to say I would rather have the old system.

Same thing happened on a trip to Italy. Hertz billed me $600 bucks for the ignored speed camera tickets they received from our rental. Now driving in Europe is a lot slower today than it was 30 years ago - but I never got a ticket back then at much higher speeds.

Relatives who commute into Milan have noticed their commutes double despite the 100 mph dashes between known cameras. While most of this can be attributed to simple traffic snarls, the cameras certainly take the fun out of the drive.

Right turns on reds are tricky enough. The problem with the ones I see are the stop lines, which are often too far back to make a right turn safely. In order to avoid getting a ticket, I stop at the line, and then inch forward slowly, making the entire process take five or six times longer than it should.

you have to be sure the car behind you doesnt rear end you as you inch up.

they are not bad, people who get the tix are not bad. They are just another means of enforcing the law. many people justify texting and shaving and doing makeup while driving, as well as running red lights. They are all ok until you get caught. Then they become bitter and blame the means of enforcement instead of looking at their actions

Take responsibility for my own actions? But I'm too (insert adjective/noun here) to be bothered like that. And besides, it's unconstitutional to have a camera take pictures on a public street.

The red light cameras are a cheap form of revenue enhancement. Haha. Now I said it.

... they remove them. Nothing to do with safety. It's too bad, I think they really could have been used to enhance safety if they hadn't been misused.

Garden Grove to keep cameras

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cameras-679281-city-alami...

So, can some one explain what the yellow means?? I thought that was the "warning" that the light was about to change red.

The yellow light means gun it because the light is about to change to red...just kidding of course.

I don't think drivers pay much attention to the yellow light anymore; it seems they neither slow down and brake for the red light to come, nor do they increase their speed to make it through the intersection before the red comes on. This is
particularly dangerous at very wide boulevard intersections where it can take several seconds to completely clear the lanes of cross traffic.
Always be aware when driving, and never assume the other driver will stop for the traffic light. Also, just because some has their turn signal on doesn't mean they are going to turn, so don't pull out in front of them...it could be the start of a very bad day.

The official definition of the yellow signal is:
The exclusive function of the yellow change interval shall be to warn traffic of an impending change in the right-of-way assignment.

This is taken from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as defined by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration in Section 4D.26 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals.

This section of the MUTCD also provides guidance for the duration of the yellow signal:
Guidance:
14 A yellow change interval should have a minimum duration of 3 seconds and a maximum duration of 6 seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with higher speeds.

Now, before everyone jumps on this a federally mandated standard, IT IS NOT PART OF THE STANDARD'S REQUIREMENTS. It is guidance, like an explanatory footnote in a text book.

The STANDARD states the duration of the red and yellow signals have to be consistent within the capabilities of the controller unit.

I agree with Smiley'a comment.

I think "smart cars" will eventually be programed with self driving in coordination of red light devices to ensure you don't run them. In manual mode ... may be the only way to get a ticket in the future.

How about neither. I'd definitely be fine with that.

haven't had too bad of an experience with red light cams, they do flash on the legal right turn but haven't gotten a ticket yet from a non-violation

I wondered if they would get me on the turns

imho CA is an extreme case, where it's always no nonsense. Don't curb your wheels? Fine. Curb them the wrong way (I admit one has to be a total idiot to do that), even larger fine. Red light cam violation? $640. It's pretty obvious, the punishment does not fit the crime. But this is a state that will toss your belongings if they think you're bringing illegal fruit over the state line.

Just go to Washington DC and drive. The entire District is blanketed with speed and red light cams. A funny thing happens. People stop, and do not speed. And, never get a ticket. Life goes on.

I don't believe the "people cannot decide to stop or go on green, yellow, red" stuff. It defies logic and one should not be licensed to drive if they cannot understand a traffic signal. This is the case at age 16, where the expectation is that they will learn from experience, and at some age I should think beyond 90, where skills deteriorate.

i have noticed that since the inception of the RLCs, there are some people who stop and keep a whole care length (or more) free in front of them when the light turns red.

Shat is this about. Are they afraid if they get too close to the line, the camera will go off. It really is annoying b/c it slows up traffic when the light turns green.