Red Light Runners

 

I'm not particularly in favor of red light cameras, but sometimes they just may be useful--in Illinois, for example. I live in Maryland and we have some of them scattered about, in the DC suburbs mainly. I don't believe cameras or runners are a major problem here, at least on the Eastern Shore.
Earlier this week I had occasion to visit the Elgin and Joliet area for a couple of days. It seemed that at every other stop light someone sped through the intersection on a changing red light, after I had the green. No cameras. Maybe there's a good reason for all the cameras in Illinois... Or did I just hit the area at a bad time? What do you think??

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav
Page 1>>

Thanks

I am glad to see someone on this site explain why cities have had to resort to red light cameras. Here in Dallas area, there were always two or three cars that would continue through the red lights. Since the cameras have gone in, there are fewer cars that run the red lights even at intersections where there are no cameras.

As a person who has had a car totaled by a red light runner, I feel the streets are safer now.

Really?

jamesrbailey wrote:

I am glad to see someone on this site explain why cities have had to resort to red light cameras. Here in Dallas area, there were always two or three cars that would continue through the red lights. Since the cameras have gone in, there are fewer cars that run the red lights even at intersections where there are no cameras.

As a person who has had a car totaled by a red light runner, I feel the streets are safer now.

Are you sure? Dallas wants to get rid of 1/3 of the red lights because people know where they are and they are no longer revenue generator and more of a liability for the city. Is that a local government wants public safety first or pure greed?

Jeff

Close Calls

I myself have had several close calls by red light runners. When the light changes to "yellow" an individual should be preparing to stop if they can do so in a safe manor before entering the intersection. By the time the "red" light comes on an individual should already know that the light is changing to "red" and be able to stop properly. If obeying the speed limit and paying attention to the road there should be no excuse for going through a red light. Initially the intersection's get a high rate of accidents because all of a sudden people are paying attention and realising that they will get a ticket for going through the light. It is somewhat of a double edged sword but I feel that these cameras do make the streets safer.

I don't mind having all the

I don't mind having all the red light cameras in the Dallas area. If it makes it safer by cutting down on inconsiderate and reckless drivers running red lights causing accidents and possibly injuries/deaths then I'm all for it. What I don't like hearing is that [at some red light camera locations] the yellow light cycle is shortened. When hearing that (if true) it makes me think the primary purpose is to produce revenue, not for safety purposes.

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

A double edged sword

I understand your point, and there ARE times when I think "where's a policeman when you want one?" I'm just paranoid about giving more power to the government, despite my close-calls with those who run red lights.

I hear the argument, "Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about." Well, I'm not breaking any laws when I take care of my bodily functions, but I wouldn't want to do it in front of a security camera.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

I wouldn't dare say anything specific about Illinois, as the last time I said anything, I was accused of being a bigot. But it's funny to see today's red light camera update: "4 new red light camera locations added in IL."

--
nüvi 750 & 760

Same Here

Yup, same here, when we moved to our new home, which was only on the other side of the city.

I'd never really seen any red light runners on that side of the city, but when we moved here, within a week, I'd almost been hit 4 times by idiots that blew through solid red lights. I'm talking 3 near misses and 1 collision with the car to the left of me.

Nowadays, I always pause for a few seconds at the light before heading through, and check to see if the other sides look like they are going to stop.

It's saved me dozens of times since then... and most of the people blowing the lights don't even seem to notice that they did it.

Even with all the RLC that we have now, people still fire though them, texting, eating, on the phone, screwing with their radios/GPSs, or just in too much of a rush to bother driving safely...

People just need to slow down and pay attention... Like my family says, "If you're that late, you should have left earlier."

--
Roleplaying Canuck Gamer with: Nuvi 760 & 2595 LMT (Map Ver.: 2019.30) 2012 RAM 1500 4x4 Big Horn Quad

I've seen an accident where

I've seen an accident where someone ran a red light and totaled his and the other car. There was a red light camera at the intersection. They do not stop red light runners they merely create revenue for cities. More often then not red light runners that cause accidents aren't paying attention so it doesnt matter if a camera in place. Those who run the light trying to beat them are usually paying attention and just don't want to stop.

Red Light Cameras

jamesrbailey wrote:

I am glad to see someone on this site explain why cities have had to resort to red light cameras. Here in Dallas area, there were always two or three cars that would continue through the red lights. Since the cameras have gone in, there are fewer cars that run the red lights even at intersections where there are no cameras.

As a person who has had a car totaled by a red light runner, I feel the streets are safer now.

Wouldn't a police officer writing tickets for moving violations do the same thing? A license suspended for points would put the hurts on you. Don't try to tell me that people would drive without a license, I already know that. People also run red lights even though they know there are cameras there too.

An officer writing $100.00 tickets could pay his own way in a couple of days. That would leave three days for him to do cop stuff. Would more police on the streets make you feel safer?

Jack j

Red light runners

Red light runners have death wishes in my opinion. If it only kills them, it'd be fine with me.

--
Michael (Nuvi 2639LMT)

I disagree.

jnamathe wrote:

They do not stop red light runners they merely create revenue for cities.

I disagree. I think statistics definitely prove that red light cameras reduce the number of accidents at certain intersections compared to when no camera is installed.

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

Looks like we're dealing

Looks like we're dealing more with people's subjective perceptions of safety rather than seeing any real data concerning the effectiveness of these instruments.

We need more objectivity. Perhaps the municipalities should release extensive data including accident statistics for a particular intersection prior to and after installation of red light cameras.

- Public Health Researchers Take A Closer Look @ Cameras & Traffic Lights. Researchers recommend engineering solutions to improve intersection safety - http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404

camera locations does not indicate an increase in rear-end type

Seneca wrote:

Looks like we're dealing more with people's subjective perceptions of safety rather than seeing any real data concerning the effectiveness of these instruments.

We need more objectivity. Perhaps the municipalities should release extensive data including accident statistics for a particular intersection prior to and after installation of red light cameras.

- Public Health Researchers Take A Closer Look @ Cameras & Traffic Lights. Researchers recommend engineering solutions to improve intersection safety - http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404

http://www.dallascityhall.com/pubsafe/pdf/redlight_camera_up...

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

Its appears that the Florida

It appears that the Florida study was more comprehensive and conclusive than what was presented in the press release for the City of Dallas.

But more importantly, Dallas instituted a variety of engineering measures to influence driving patterns. They did not rely solely on red light cameras as a deterrent.

Red lights and Global Warming

One of the reasons for squeezing the yellow light is the impatience of drivers for the length of red lights, particularly when there is no other traffic on the scene. Many intersections in suburban Chicago have these dumb lights that have protected left turn arrows. When you miss that left arrow, regardless of other traffic, you have to sit through all the other light cycles, even though there are magnetic detectors in the road that signal no traffic. Even straight through traffic sees this problem when there is a red light for a single vehicle in the cross traffic and must wait for the lengthy light cycles. I assume that relay technology is long gone, so traffic engineers could reprogram these intersections to be intelligent. When heavy traffic is on the roads, from 6-9am and 2-7pm in Chicago suburbia, there is a lot of waiting for unsynchronized traffic signals. Here in St. Charles, IL, the city leaders decided to pay for a few RLC's, but still don't fix the downtown traffic lights so that once an emergency vehicle has unsynchronized these lights, traffic backs up for miles before the lights resynchronize. And we wonder why people squeeze through yellow lights?

With right turn on red, it seems the RLCs are exacting digital discipline on analog situations. In the suburbs, there are painted crosswalks, but never pedestrians in these crosswalks, as there are no sidewalks! So the painted white stop line is routinely violated as drivers inch forward to see the cross traffic before turning right on red. A simple yield on red sign at these intersections would adequately protect traffic, but again, cut down on vehicles wasting energy coming to a complete stop.

Both these measures would save significant fuel, foreign oil purchases and air pollution. All we need are intelligent leaders (an oxymoron) to think this through.

That's what PO's me about RLCs. That and the implicated trumped up revenue stream.

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

Red Light Runners

On the surface, it seems plausible, but lets face it, there is always going to be the ones that run red lights. What the red light cameras are, a money machine for the police.
What happened to the cop that catches the person up front, instead of getting a ticket two weeks later.
They are putting crime on the back burner, in favor of, the lazy cop, getting revenue through cameras.
That is my opinion of the situation.

--
D.H.

Or...you could say that red light cameras

Or...you could say that red light cameras are more effective than using a human cop, his vehicle and equipment to monitor for red light runners. Then, the cop can be used more effectively for other things that require human intervention. You could also say that red light cameras are cost saving tools, much like robots are in manufacturing.

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

Objectivity - here it is

So you want to see objectivity? How about the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the folks who recommend red and yellow light standards for the United States?

Look at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport5.asp

"...inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries..."

Also, look at topic 3. You'll see that the yellow light has been summarily reduced since 1976 to the present.

San Diego and Los Angeles recently were sued and both municipalities were found guilty of shortening the yellow light timings to generate "red light runner" fines in favor of revenue.

An ITE change in 1994 caused this:

Quote

Changes were made to the code specifically for camera enforcement

These changes are significant. But if it was not clear enough in the above documents that ITE had cameras in mind in 1985, they make it explicit a few years later. The 1994 ITE "Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Interval" states:

When the percentage of vehicles that entered on a red indication exceeds that which is locally acceptable, the yellow change interval may be lengthened (or shortened) until the percentage conforms to local standards, or enforcement can be used instead. (Page 5, emphasis added).

In other words, if too many people are running red lights, jurisdictions need not address deficiencies in intersection design or signal timing. Instead, they can simply "use enforcement" by putting up a red light camera. They are suggesting creation of an intersection that will have a perpetually high level of red light runners by design. Since enforcement by police officers wouldn't be 24-hours a day, it is hard to conceive that they had anything other than 24-hour red light cameras in mind.

End Quote

San Diego and Los Angeles hid behind the "locally acceptable" clause to generate revenue and lost. They forgot about the judicial branch of government.

--
Gotta travel on ... with my nuvi 2450LM.

Red Light Robots

koot wrote:

Or...you could say that red light cameras are more effective than using a human cop, his vehicle and equipment to monitor for red light runners. Then, the cop can be used more effectively for other things that require human intervention. You could also say that red light cameras are cost saving tools, much like robots are in manufacturing.

Robots used in manufacturing are cost saving tools only if they replace one or more workers. If all they do is free up an existing worker so he can do another job then they are not saving money.

The same is true for a patrol car and officer at an intersection. If the red light camera allows the officer to be laid off then it saves the city money. But if all it does is free up the officer to answer routine calls, it doesn't save money.

The officer doesn't have to be at an intersection to deter red light runners. Issue enough tickets and the intersection gets the reputation as a place where you can get a ticket if you aren't careful. Drivers will be more careful and the officer can answer routine calls even when he is assigned to write tickets at an intersection.

Red light cameras are revenue generators, they have no other purpose. The ticket issued by one is issued to the owner of the car, not the operator. Other than a fine there is no penalty so if you can afford it you can rack up 100's of tickets per month and not worry about loosing your license.

Jack j

I like the new red lights

I like the new red lights that have countdowns of the green / yellow, so drivers know when to slow down and apply brakes.

The walk/no walk sign flashes the # of seconds that the light will switch from green to yellow to red. That way as a driver I can see amply far ahead if I need to slow down or not.

This makes red lights much safer.

--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work

That is some wacky thinking!

jackj180 wrote:
koot wrote:

Or...you could say that red light cameras are more effective than using a human cop, his vehicle and equipment to monitor for red light runners. Then, the cop can be used more effectively for other things that require human intervention. You could also say that red light cameras are cost saving tools, much like robots are in manufacturing.

Robots used in manufacturing are cost saving tools only if they replace one or more workers. If all they do is free up an existing worker so he can do another job then they are not saving money.

The same is true for a patrol car and officer at an intersection. If the red light camera allows the officer to be laid off then it saves the city money. But if all it does is free up the officer to answer routine calls, it doesn't save money.

The officer doesn't have to be at an intersection to deter red light runners. Issue enough tickets and the intersection gets the reputation as a place where you can get a ticket if you aren't careful. Drivers will be more careful and the officer can answer routine calls even when he is assigned to write tickets at an intersection.

Red light cameras are revenue generators, they have no other purpose. The ticket issued by one is issued to the owner of the car, not the operator. Other than a fine there is no penalty so if you can afford it you can rack up 100's of tickets per month and not worry about loosing your license.

Jack j

That is some really wacky thinking! Did you consider that the freed-up worker can be used somewhere else where needed, which prevents having to hire an additional employee thereby saving money. Or the freed-up worker can perform another task, which increases productivity? Nah...

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

Absolutely

You are so right, nuvic320! I first used the countdown system while using the crosswalks in California. It is most helpful to see how much time that you have to walk across an intersection. It really helps the elderly and handicap as a bonus. And I no longer saw the teens trying to make it across before the light changed. I haven't seen these in Florida, but they can't do anything but help.

Since they've put up redlight cameras here, you never know when someone is going to do a panic stop on a yellow light. Because they don't know when the red with come on and cost them $125.00, they would rather spike their brakes! They assume that the driver who hits them in the rear will always be at fault (BTW, this is not true).

Don't forget that the car in front of you is already stopping when you see their brake lights. You lose at least one second in reaction time before you even begin stopping. Depending on your speed, you may have traveled a long distance.

I feel sorry for those who do not have ABS brakes on their vehicles, and then are forced to stop behind a car with ABS brakes. I do have ABS brakes, but I am still at a higher risk when the vehicle in front of me has them also.

Last week I was in the next lane to a vehicle when the light turned yellow when we were about 50 feet from the intersection. I heard that car lock skid to a halt into the crosswalk. As I proceeded through the yellow light, I listened for a crash. If anybody were behind that car, they would have surely been involved in a wreck.

The countdown light is a definite asset for these kinds of situations. Thank you, nuvic320, for calling this to our attention.

--
Gotta travel on ... with my nuvi 2450LM.

Robots

koot wrote:
jackj180 wrote:
koot wrote:

Or...you could say that red light cameras are more effective than using a human cop, his vehicle and equipment to monitor for red light runners. Then, the cop can be used more effectively for other things that require human intervention. You could also say that red light cameras are cost saving tools, much like robots are in manufacturing.

Robots used in manufacturing are cost saving tools only if they replace one or more workers. If all they do is free up an existing worker so he can do another job then they are not saving money.

The same is true for a patrol car and officer at an intersection. If the red light camera allows the officer to be laid off then it saves the city money. But if all it does is free up the officer to answer routine calls, it doesn't save money.

The officer doesn't have to be at an intersection to deter red light runners. Issue enough tickets and the intersection gets the reputation as a place where you can get a ticket if you aren't careful. Drivers will be more careful and the officer can answer routine calls even when he is assigned to write tickets at an intersection.

Red light cameras are revenue generators, they have no other purpose. The ticket issued by one is issued to the owner of the car, not the operator. Other than a fine there is no penalty so if you can afford it you can rack up 100's of tickets per month and not worry about loosing your license.

Jack j

That is some really wacky thinking! Did you consider that the freed-up worker can be used somewhere else where needed, which prevents having to hire an additional employee thereby saving money. Or the freed-up worker can perform another task, which increases productivity? Nah...

How does it save money if a worker is needed to monitor the output of the robot. How does it save money if the union requires the company to reassign a worker to a 'make-work' type of job. I could go on and on with reasons why a robot won't save money unless it allows a reduction in the work force but it would be a waste of time. Same is true with enforcement cameras. And you didn't respond to my last paragraph, or does that one make too much sense for you?

Jack j

Jack,

jackj180 wrote:

Red light cameras are revenue generators, they have no other purpose. The ticket issued by one is issued to the owner of the car, not the operator. Other than a fine there is no penalty so if you can afford it you can rack up 100's of tickets per month and 00's of tickets per month and not worry about loosing your license.

jackj180 wrote:

How does it save money if a worker is needed to monitor the output of the robot. How does it save money if the union requires the company to reassign a worker to a 'make-work' type of job. I could go on and on with reasons why a robot won't save money unless it allows a reduction in the work force but it would be a waste of time. Same is true with enforcement cameras. And you didn't respond to my last paragraph, or does that one make too much sense for you?

Jack j

The issue with your logic, a comparison of basketballs to bridges is the problem.

Your statement about a worker being reassigned because of union rules has no bearing on the subject.

If you put a police officer on a corner with a video camera to film all the traffic and then issued tickets as a result of reviewing the video, would that be wrong? Is there a rule the officer has to be in a marked patrol car? How about a uniform? Why couldn't it be a civilian? There are so many permutations to your argument, it isn't really worth discussing.

Cities are in need of revenue and traditionally, whenever there has been a push for more revenue, enforcement goes up. And that revenue is generated by either a police officer stopping cars for minor infractions and issuing written tickets to changes in laws about parking and the time allowed at meters and other zones.

Yes, cameras are about revenue, but then every ticket is about revenue and as long as idiots are willing to generate infractions to provide that revenue they are going to capture it in any manner necessary.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Not so

koot wrote:
jnamathe wrote:

They do not stop red light runners they merely create revenue for cities.

I disagree. I think statistics definitely prove that red light cameras reduce the number of accidents at certain intersections compared to when no camera is installed.

If that is so please supply the statistics. IIRC there have been posts showing that not to be true.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Wait and Look

Red Light Runners are fairly common, where I live. Too many people in a hurry.

No matter what, you should never take off when the light changes to Green, without taking a few extra seconds to look both ways to make sure that some idiot isn't running the light.

Whether the city uses it for revenue generation, or honest to goodness safety reasons, I don't have a big problem with the RLCs. You do see a difference in behavior. In Canada, the municipality must post signs to warn people that there are red light cameras in use. There's no excuse to run the light.

In other cases, it has been helpful for accident reconstruction. A friend of my daughter got hit and they initially were going to charge her with failing to yield. That was until they saw the red light camera photos and determined that the other guy actually ran the red.

Speed cameras are another issue altogether. Those are almost certainly for revenue.

--
DriveSmart 65, NUVI2555LMT, (NUVI350 is Now Retired)

Probably been said before but..

Since most people won't even remember the incident in question other than maybe remembering they were at the intersection given you don't receive the ticket for 3-4 weeks or longer after the incident took place are these money grabbing devices really all about safety?
If an officer observes the infraction, pulls you over you understand instantly why you were pulled over though you may not agree.
If your pet has an accident on the carpet it's kinda like waiting 3 weeks to punish them for it.
If the intersection is that bad from a safety perspective why not put an officer there rather than a machine?

You finally agree

You finally admit that red light cameras are there to generate revenue, not to promote safety. Safety is the reason cities site to install them but money is the real reason.

Glad you finally came around to my viewpoint a_user.

Jack j

Good Discussion, But...

This has been a good and interesting discussion, but my original post was questioning whether some areas might have significantly more red light runners than other areas. If so, then I believe it's OK for red light cameras,whether they reduce the number of runners, or just generate revenue, punishing scofflaws. I imagine they reduce the number of runners somewhat. I certainly am more careful around RLCs.

On my trip around northern Illinois earlier this week I saw many more red light runners than I see every day around my home in eastern MD.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Well, Gee Jack

jackj180 wrote:

You finally admit that red light cameras are there to generate revenue, not to promote safety. Safety is the reason cities site to install them but money is the real reason.

Glad you finally came around to my viewpoint a_user.

Jack j

I have never stated the ONLY reason for cameras was safety. Just as I've never stated the only reason was for revenue. If it weren't for the idiots that don't think and make the assumption they have an inalienable right to do as they please behind the wheel, then there would be no need for them would there?

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Some areas will certainly

Some areas will certainly have more red light runners depending on a number of factors. Depending on if they're placed near an interstate or far away from one these government money sucker-uppers may catch more people from out of town and just passing through who again won't know for weeks they did something wrong and thus while the camera does generate revenue it has no chance of affecting behavior for weeks since it will take that long to send out the infraction.
As stated priviously by someone, since the driver isn't cited and their drivers license isn't dinged if they can afford to pay the fines their driving privledges will never be affected at all. This isn't about changing behavior it is clearly about making money.
If these cameras are put up for safety let's have them at every intersection. Most know that will never happen and why it won't. Not enough money would be made.

One more point..Many out of towners probably would think twice about ever coming back to that city/town or that part of town of where they got one of these tickets. What this does is hurt business owners in that part of town.

Where do you fit?

jackj180 wrote:

You finally admit that red light cameras are there to generate revenue, not to promote safety. Safety is the reason cities site to install them but money is the real reason.

Glad you finally came around to my viewpoint a_user.

Jack j

Let's see now - if you know there is a red light camera at an intersection will you be more cautious about running the red light, or will you take the attitude that you could care less that it has a camera? My guess is that most logical-thinking people will be more cautious if they know there's a red light camera. Where do you fit?

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

Red light cameras

I ran a red light camera at a semi T intersection in Florida (with a Sheriff's car present)
When I looked in the rear view mirror, I could see the car coming up behind me was not going to stop. It was either stop and get hit or run the light.
Not much of a choice as I could see.
The Deputy stopped me and said he was going to void the citation as he saw what happened. The car behind me was going to get his citation in the mail.
If the Deputy did not see it, I would have got my citation also.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

That type of maneuver is

That type of maneuver is rarely needed. The red light camera did not cause that event...

--
Politicians and Diapers must be changed often for the exact same reason...

I know it didn't cause the

I know it didn't cause the event, it was the car behind me. But if the deputy didn't see it, I still would have gotten the citation. Dont get me wrong, I am a fan of red ligh cameras. They have cut down on light runners near me in Florida.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

Red Light Cameras Save Lifes

It's a fact. The Mayor of Phoenix proved it with a study.

A completely different perspective...

It’s more than simply a monetary issue. I’d frame the issue as a larger conceptual one that involves individual free will or autonomy versus regulation of behavior and the methods used to enforce compliance and guarantee conformity.

Technology has advanced to the point where a person’s past behavior and current lifestyle can be categorized to the extent that taken together with other people’s profiles, broad groups of similar people can be controlled for political and/or economic reasons. Public relations firms exist in part for this very purpose. With the existence of these firms and the knowledge of the influence of lobbying groups, I place no trust in the benevolence of government or private entities to use this knowledge unfettered without some safeguards enacted.

Now, I don’t seriously believe this technology can be rolled back short of total systemic collapse—highly unlikely. However, we can push for legislation that governs the collection, use and storage of this data and that maintains somewhat of a bulwark against the proliferation of intrusive technologies.

In Western society the historical trend has been for such things as the recognition of individual rights and the due process of law. However, who’s to say that in 20 years time, we will not be the subjects of a system of quasi-capitalism with no respect for individual rights and which uses technology to maintain control? Who’s to say that our present time is not at a crucial nexus to prevent this possible social trajectory? Look also at the state of public education where social conditioning becomes the primary focus. Do our educational institutions actually produce critical thinkers, i.e., those individuals that question the status quo or rather do these institutions churn out a mass of bland homogenized consumers who are easily manipulated for political ends? Perhaps the dumbing down is not by accident but by design through such things as the easy availability of drugs, the pervasive influence and glorification of pop culture, and methods of electronic gratification including video games and internet.

Red light and speed cameras are only one part of the entire picture of the current and future state of data collection and storage for the purpose of behavior modification. Is it such a long stretch of imagination to believe that monied interests such as corporations would seek to use this technology to ensure their perpetuity?

Then there are such things as security theater which are productions appearing to enhance security but actually are methods of reinforcing submission to authority. Would you have thought that taking away a pair of nail clippers from grandma by TSA is actually protecting our nation’s security? Would it perhaps be more legitimate to believe these are actions designed to ensure conformity under threat of punishment?

Research in social psychology such as Solomon Asch’s conformity experiment and Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment has already indicated the malleability of the individual in conforming to larger social ends, and that technology wedded to psychology forms a sort of holy grail to preserve future social order.

Where has vigilance gone in these decadent times, where bodily and material gratification consumes people’s lives, thoughts and actions, so that concepts such as individual liberty, virtue and honor are removed from the personal sphere to be displaced to some realm of fantasy or forgotten? Repressive desublimation is a term used in critical theory that describes this phenomenon of displacement where the prospects of individual freedom look bleak even as one proclaims the wonders of the consumer paradise.

In principle you should not mind if in the future all vehicles have electronic data recorders including GPS to maintain a data stream of driving behavior so you can be taxed accordingly for carbon emissions and road usage. Maybe we also can issue RFID transponders to all vehicles so that when multitudes of cameras are in place then you’re automatically issued a ticket and since the camera says you’re guilty, have the fine taken directly from your bank account or credit line. If it’s all codified in the law, then you should have no problem obeying, right?

Where science meets art: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/317515/samsung_system_...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk.

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762

Red Light Cameras aaarrrrrgggg!!!

My thoughts - if the stupid municipalities would TIME the lights so that you can run at the speed limit and make all the lights you would solve the problem and save MILLIONS of gallons of gas a year.

This will not happen because you cannot make money doing this. Nobody runs lights - no $100 ticket.... No money in the coffers to give to your buddies (or put in your pocket)

Problem with this is LOGIC municipalities and the government in general do not use LOGIC and do not know what it is.

I cannot count the times that I have to stop at dang near EVERY light. I guess they are timed perfectly - to make you stop at every one!!!!!

Makes me want to do a Cool Hand Luke and cut the dang stop lights down (instead of the meters as cool did!!!)

Crew

Traffic Lights

b25crew wrote:

My thoughts - if the stupid municipalities would TIME the lights so that you can run at the speed limit and make all the lights you would solve the problem and save MILLIONS of gallons of gas a year.

This will not happen because you cannot make money doing this. Nobody runs lights - no $100 ticket.... No money in the coffers to give to your buddies (or put in your pocket)

Problem with this is LOGIC municipalities and the government in general do not use LOGIC and do not know what it is.

I cannot count the times that I have to stop at dang near EVERY light. I guess they are timed perfectly - to make you stop at every one!!!!!

Makes me want to do a Cool Hand Luke and cut the dang stop lights down (instead of the meters as cool did!!!)

Crew

I'll go along with that! Here in NW Ohio, a lot of the traffic lights have sensor loops just behind the stop line. Some of the smarter ones have two loops, one at the stop line and one about 50 feet before the stop line. We also have "right turn on red" at most traffic lights. A car will pull up to the intersection, trip the control loop, wait for the traffic to clear and then turn right. Meanwhile, the dumb light control circuit has been tripped so it cycles the traffic light stopping 50 cars so one can go through the intersection....only it has already cleared the intersection. Why not write the software so that if the trigger disappears (the car makes a right on red), it doesn't cycle the light?

Jack j

It's just...

Tuckahoemike wrote:

Earlier this week I had occasion to visit the Elgin and Joliet area for a couple of days. It seemed that at every other stop light someone sped through the intersection on a changing red light, after I had the green. No cameras. Maybe there's a good reason for all the cameras in Illinois... Or did I just hit the area at a bad time? What do you think??

It's just your local citizens trying to make money for their government. So relax, wait a second or 2 before taking off on the green, and you can traverse the Illinois roads like a professional!! LoL I don't give two poops about the camera's. The Mrs got caught twice, but me? It has been 20+ years since I even got a ticket of any kind from the local LEO's. Only tickets I get are Lottery, and I pay first. wink

--
Rodney.. oditius.htc@gmail.com BMW Zumo 550 HTC Touch Pro - Garmin XT

Tuckahoemike wrote: I'm not

Tuckahoemike wrote:

I'm not particularly in favor of red light cameras, but sometimes they just may be useful--in Illinois, for example. I live in Maryland and we have some of them scattered about, in the DC suburbs mainly. I don't believe cameras or runners are a major problem here, at least on the Eastern Shore.
Earlier this week I had occasion to visit the Elgin and Joliet area for a couple of days. It seemed that at every other stop light someone sped through the intersection on a changing red light, after I had the green. No cameras. Maybe there's a good reason for all the cameras in Illinois... Or did I just hit the area at a bad time? What do you think??

That would be a good reason to have a bit more traditional enforcement. The cameras are never justified. They are rigged to get as much revenue as possible, timed so that a few are guaranteed to be unable to stop. Hey, maybe thats why some of them didn't stop in your situation. Maybe if we got rid of the cameras and just timed the lights better, things would be safer... and you would have a bit more money in your pocket and the govenment and red light camera companies would have a bit less.

Just remember

Seneca wrote:

It’s more than simply a monetary issue. I’d frame the issue as a larger conceptual one that involves individual free will or autonomy versus regulation of behavior and the methods used to enforce compliance and guarantee conformity.

Technology has advanced to the point where a person’s past behavior and current lifestyle can be categorized to the extent that taken together with other people’s profiles, broad groups of similar people can be controlled for political and/or economic reasons. Public relations firms exist in part for this very purpose. With the existence of these firms and the knowledge of the influence of lobbying groups, I place no trust in the benevolence of government or private entities to use this knowledge unfettered without some safeguards enacted.

Now, I don’t seriously believe this technology can be rolled back short of total systemic collapse—highly unlikely. However, we can push for legislation that governs the collection, use and storage of this data and that maintains somewhat of a bulwark against the proliferation of intrusive technologies.

In Western society the historical trend has been for such things as the recognition of individual rights and the due process of law. However, who’s to say that in 20 years time, we will not be the subjects of a system of quasi-capitalism with no respect for individual rights and which uses technology to maintain control? Who’s to say that our present time is not at a crucial nexus to prevent this possible social trajectory? Look also at the state of public education where social conditioning becomes the primary focus. Do our educational institutions actually produce critical thinkers, i.e., those individuals that question the status quo or rather do these institutions churn out a mass of bland homogenized consumers who are easily manipulated for political ends? Perhaps the dumbing down is not by accident but by design through such things as the easy availability of drugs, the pervasive influence and glorification of pop culture, and methods of electronic gratification including video games and internet.

Red light and speed cameras are only one part of the entire picture of the current and future state of data collection and storage for the purpose of behavior modification. Is it such a long stretch of imagination to believe that monied interests such as corporations would seek to use this technology to ensure their perpetuity?

Then there are such things as security theater which are productions appearing to enhance security but actually are methods of reinforcing submission to authority. Would you have thought that taking away a pair of nail clippers from grandma by TSA is actually protecting our nation’s security? Would it perhaps be more legitimate to believe these are actions designed to ensure conformity under threat of punishment?

Research in social psychology such as Solomon Asch’s conformity experiment and Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment has already indicated the malleability of the individual in conforming to larger social ends, and that technology wedded to psychology forms a sort of holy grail to preserve future social order.

Where has vigilance gone in these decadent times, where bodily and material gratification consumes people’s lives, thoughts and actions, so that concepts such as individual liberty, virtue and honor are removed from the personal sphere to be displaced to some realm of fantasy or forgotten? Repressive desublimation is a term used in critical theory that describes this phenomenon of displacement where the prospects of individual freedom look bleak even as one proclaims the wonders of the consumer paradise.

In principle you should not mind if in the future all vehicles have electronic data recorders including GPS to maintain a data stream of driving behavior so you can be taxed accordingly for carbon emissions and road usage. Maybe we also can issue RFID transponders to all vehicles so that when multitudes of cameras are in place then you’re automatically issued a ticket and since the camera says you’re guilty, have the fine taken directly from your bank account or credit line. If it’s all codified in the law, then you should have no problem obeying, right?

Where science meets art: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/317515/samsung_system_...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQbVD5hlddk.

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762

The government is not your friend but an entity to be kept at bay.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

IF Governments didn't fiddle with the yellow light timing...

tomturtle wrote:
Tuckahoemike wrote:

I'm not particularly in favor of red light cameras, but sometimes they just may be useful--in Illinois, for example. I live in Maryland and we have some of them scattered about, in the DC suburbs mainly. I don't believe cameras or runners are a major problem here, at least on the Eastern Shore.
Earlier this week I had occasion to visit the Elgin and Joliet area for a couple of days. It seemed that at every other stop light someone sped through the intersection on a changing red light, after I had the green. No cameras. Maybe there's a good reason for all the cameras in Illinois... Or did I just hit the area at a bad time? What do you think??

That would be a good reason to have a bit more traditional enforcement. The cameras are never justified. They are rigged to get as much revenue as possible, timed so that a few are guaranteed to be unable to stop. Hey, maybe thats why some of them didn't stop in your situation. Maybe if we got rid of the cameras and just timed the lights better, things would be safer... and you would have a bit more money in your pocket and the govenment and red light camera companies would have a bit less.

The red light runners in Illinois didn't cause me any problems personally. Many were left turners that just didn't want to wait for the next green. BUT it seems to me that IF (I know, it's a big if) governments didn't fiddle with the yellow light timing, cameras in some places and areas where there are scofflaw problems would be a positive thing. Just a thought...

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Look also at engineering and design solutions...

Actually, you ask a good question though I would not frame it such that we are locked into one of only two answers for all cases. The consequence of limiting the outcome is a lose-lose situation because essentially either answer leads to more enforcement (more red light cameras or more policemen) that is if everyone agrees there is a definite problem with lawlessness. But is lawlessness really the case and is increased enforcement actually necessary?

Take a look at an example from another situation. The FBI maintains criminal statistics such as crime rate per capita and the incidence and location of various crimes. Over time one can see fluctuations in the various categories of crime including violent crime. One should ideally be able to analyze and extract a pattern from the data. If enough data is available then it is possible to see the picture as actually a confluence of factors and then attempt to separate the different influences to identify the likely primary drivers of the pattern.

If I recall correctly, there was a noticeable drop in violent crime over the time period from the mid-60’s to about the mid-80’s. So, what was the underlying cause in the drop? Was it an increase in the number of law enforcement personnel? Was it changes in the tactics used by law enforcement? Or, rather was it simply a change in demographics such that we saw the aging of the baby boomer generation, a shift in age from the years of impulsive behavior towards a more mature state?

Take another example from health care. Has the incidence of various ailments actually increased per population or is this pattern actually an artifact of better diagnosis? Since we’re on this analogy perhaps looking at this from a physician’s perspective as a systemic problem might yield some results (we’re looking at an amalgam of symptoms of a broad underlying condition). What is the broad sociological phenomenon we’ve experienced? The housing bubble? You are familiar with the widespread corruption exhibited across the range from the shady dealings by the largest companies all the way down to the local and individual level (inflated appraisals, etc). But I might be blowing smoke out my ass to point my finger at the moral hazard presented by easy credit as the culprit. So was something like greed having a corrosive effect on personal and collective responsibility? Or is it simply impatience?

Personally, I’m in line with some of the techies here. Don’t allow the unwarranted proliferation of cameras to serve as the only solution. Look also at engineering and design solutions.

.

Red light and speed cams are simply tools that allow those who decide they wish to run red lights and speed almost with impunity by simply paying a fee.

No impact on their insurance or licenses, just a token fee for having decided it wasn't worth stopping for the light or that the speed limit was just a suggestion.

Without consequences, beyond the single monetary charge there's just no point.

Further there is a demonstrated relationship between the installation of red light cams and an increase in rear-end collissions - and that's just for the fender benders they KNOW about!!.

All they've done (aside from collecting lots of money), is to move the accident from the front of the runner's car to his rear bumper.

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

On Topic

Red Light Cameras are those things at regulated intersections that incentiveize safe driving behavior. Micro-chips in your brain are those things that people like you rant about while in an incoherrent rage.

Huh?

jennyzita wrote:

Red Light Cameras are those things at regulated intersections that incentiveize safe driving behavior. Micro-chips in your brain are those things that people like you rant about while in an incoherrent rage.

Who is that addressed to? I don't think anyone is in a rage of any type here.

Dave 817 is right on..!

Dave 817 said in part..

dave817 wrote:

One of the reasons for squeezing the yellow light is the impatience of drivers for the length of red lights, particularly when there is no other traffic on the scene. Many intersections in suburban Chicago have these dumb lights that have protected left turn arrows. When you miss that left arrow, regardless of other traffic, you have to sit through all the other light cycles, even though there are magnetic detectors in the road that signal no traffic. Even straight through traffic sees this problem when there is a red light for a single vehicle in the cross traffic and must wait for the lengthy light cycles. And we wonder why people squeeze through yellow lights?

I agree with Dave 817 one thousand percent. Way to go Dave.. y'all made my day.

Anyhooch.. Up until I recently retired a few months ago I had to travel through 32 R/Y/G light controlled intersections, of which 5 or 6 of the intersections were in a area of a half mile or less of one another.

If one were lucky enough to catch the first intersection light "Green" you could sail through all the others without any problem.. and be on your way. God help you if you were caught "Red" lighted (ahh, is that a word?), at the first intersection because you realized you just added another 20 minutes to your trip.

The way the lights were set up when you stopped was as follows. Cross traffic "left" turns began and ended both at the same time.. while a couple of others only one at a time because it had to do with a couple of cross streets being only one way, then the cross traffic ran. When they ended, on coming and your "left" turning traffic was released. Obviously if the "left" turn was against the "one way" then there wasn't a left turn.

Once all of the aforementioned light turning was completed then (and ONLY then), did your light turn "Green" allowing you to continue on to the next light where you went through the same scenario for the next five lights.

After having gone through that situation the first few times I came up with a solution that benefited me. When I approached the first light I was always in the far right lane. If the light was "Green" I continued on. If I found the light "Red" or about to turn "Red" I turned right and took my first left, which was less than a half block away. At that point (being a side street), there was only 0ne stop sign I had to contend with before I turned back on to the main drag.. at which point the main body of vehicles (that I would have been in if I hadn't done my detour), was just leaving at the second stop light intersection.

I've often wondered why others didn't do what I had. It would have been so much easier.

Just my thoughts.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

Machines Don't Cost..! Really..!

JackJ180 said in part..

jackj180 wrote:

Robots used in manufacturing are cost saving tools only if they replace one or more workers. If all they do is free up an existing worker so he can do another job then they are not saving money. Jack j

Actually you're wrong.

Let's say a worker (we'll call him, hmmm.. "Jack J 180), is operating a machine that makes widgets. The next day when good old "Jack J 180" comes to work he finds out he's been replace by a machine to do his job.. but he need not worry about his job there at "Widgets International" because the boss now has him doing something else.

It doesn't matter what the reason is.. and using your example, ie: "all they do is free up an existing worker so he can do another job". If the original worker is "Freed Up" to do another job then "YES" it is cost cutting because that "other job" could have been done by employing a second worker to do it.

By using a machine to do Jack J 180's original job, it means a company doesn't have to hire a second human being.. and the costs there of, to do the "other job" that Jack J 180 is now doing.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

Red light cameras often means shortening of the yellow phase.

I like them too but haven't seen one in my travels in the NYC/Nassau County area on those intersections with the red light cameras.

I do have an issue with the yellow lights that get shortened once the red light camera goes in. If you travel frequent roads you get to know when things will change and now I am never really sure. If the intersection has a walk/don't walk sign at least you get a visual indicator before a green light turns to a yellow (very quickly) phase. Not every intersection I cross has that. I find then that I am trying to figure out how old the green phase may be upon approach knowing that the yellow phase will quickly pass. As such, I sometimes find that I am preparing to stop when I could have clearly kept my speed and proceeded through the intersection.

I do not run red lights and am very annoyed by people who do---especially when blatantly done- but I don't want to have to second guess the green light/quick yellow phase of roulette at some of the intersections I traverse.

Rob

nuvic320 wrote:

I like the new red lights that have countdowns of the green / yellow...

--
Maps -> Wife -> Garmin 12XL -> StreetPilot 2610 -> Nuvi 660 (blown speaker) -> Nuvi 3790LMT

Never been hit...

I've never been hit by someone running a redlight. Why? I look both ways before blindly going through an intersection when the light turns green. Just because the light is green, doesn't mean you are safe, even though you *are* in the right. I liken it to kids at the college I used to work at who would blindly step into crosswalks on (curvy) College Road on icy/snowy days. Yes, they had the right of way. Was it a smart move to do so without looking for (even slowly moving) oncoming traffic? Not really. State laws and the laws of physics are two different animals grin

While I agree that red light cameras can cut down on accidents (at least at the red lights they are at), I also feel their primary purpose is to generate revenue. Don't think so? Well, take the case of my home state, NC. Charlotte had red light and speed cameras for a while. However, in NC most of the monies from parking tickets, red light running, and speeding are required by law to go to the local school board. Well, Charlotte wasn't paying those revenues to the local system. When a law suit by a school board in the state against a municipality clarified this issue in favor of the school boards, guess what happened? The cameras went away because after the cut that was required to go to the local school board, the city would be loosing money on each ticket. A lot of money. The cameras were, like in many locations, run by a third party.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers,
--Lee

Page 1>>