Redwood City, California was forced to admit

interesting read, red light cameras the modern day speed trap.

I guess my biggest thing with these cameras is how do they work. Do they only go off if you enter the intersection after the light turns red? Do they get you if you are in the middle of an intersection trying to turn and the light turns. Or all they all different.
Thanks in advance.

It seems as though that red light camera was a success at its intended purpose. Look at all the money it made for that county!

The article says,

“While the number of red light violation-related collisions at the approaches have not had a significant change since the installation of the red light cameras, it would appear the city’s camera systems are reducing the number of red light violations as the number of violations recorded have dropped since their installation,”

Having lived in RWC for 5 years and being very familiar with that intersection I think that makes me as qualified as anyone on this forum to attest how dangerous an intersection this is. I would say reducing the number of red light violations is a huge win for safety. Red light cameras may be revenue generators for cities however they make me feel a little safer knowing they may deter just one person. I have never quite understood why some are so against them, as long as the municipality is using them ethically what's the problem?

Ahhhh, the PROBLEM is.. there are some situations and circumstances where running a red light is better than if you didn't!

Not everything in this life is black and white. There are shades of grey in between.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Double tap quoted the first paragraph of the article which was titled
California: Another City Admits Accidents Not Reduced By Red Light Cameras

with this link

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/california-another-city-adm...

The next two paragraphs of the linked article say:

“Under the signature of Police Chief Louis A. Cobarruviaz, the letter ignores every substantial recommendation offered by the grand jury. For example, because the number of accidents is not going down, the city disagreed with the grand jury recommendation that the city measure the program’s ongoing effectiveness by the number of collisions before and after camera installation. The grand jury insisted that the city council be provided a regular update on these rates on at least an annual basis, but no such report has been implemented.

“While the number of red light violation-related collisions at the approaches have not had a significant change since the installation of the red light cameras, it would appear the city’s camera systems are reducing the number of red light violations as the number of violations recorded have dropped since their installation,” the draft response letter stated.”

At the bottom of the linked article is a link to the civil grand jury report that supposedly “blasted” the city.

http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/ca-smcgj.pdf

Here are the recommendations from that grand jury report

“Recommendations
The 2009-2010 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends the following to the City Councils of the cities of San Mateo County:
1. Consideration of where a red light camera is to be installed should be driven by the number of vehicle collisions occurring at that intersection and not the potential amount of revenue generated from citations. Because of the impact on the courts as well as the citizenry, a final decision should be made by the respective city council in open hearings.
2. Each jurisdiction installing a red light camera should measure its ongoing effectiveness by the number of accidents caused from red light violations before and after installation.
3. Establish consistent and regular reporting of accident rates to senior officials including the respective city councils. This should be done at least annually. When reports indicate that accident rates have not been reduced, action should be taken to investigate why and removal of the red light cameras should be considered if they are not effective.
4. Working through the county Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association and/or the City Managers Association, establish and require consistent protocols to be used by all county cities for evaluating possible violations and the issuance of a citation. Such county-wide standards can allow courts to more quickly and efficiently evaluate appeals that come before it.
5. Install prominent signage, at the camera intersection, highly visible to all approaching traffic warning motorists of the camera. This should include signage warning motorists to come to a full stop before turning right on a red light.
6. Working through the county Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association and/or the City Managers Association, consider centralizing the administrative tasks of evaluating possible violations and issuance of citations. This would not only achieve budgetary savings but would also insure consistent and professional application of the protocols affecting San Mateo Drivers.”

Here is the link to the Response by the police department

http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/ca-redwood.pdf

This is the pertinent part of the Police department draft letter which is responding to recommendation 2 above.

Response
The recommendation to report the accident rates at the intersection has
not yet been implemented but will be implemented at the end of calendar
year 2010 if requested by the City Manager and City Council

The City does not feel that the accident rate alone should determine if the
cameras should be removed The effectiveness of the cameras should
also be measured by the number of violations captured and the reduction
of the violations over time It is hoped that the cameras are a deterrent
and drivers are becoming educated to become more cognizant of traffic
control signals

If, as I did, you follow all the possible links and read what was said, I think you would agree that the original linked article was selectively written to inflame a “casual” reader - as most would be. the 13.8 is a countwide number and the Redwood take is very small and may not have covered the costs.

It takes about 30 minutes to follow all the links and read the material.

My takeway is that we will have to wait to get statistics about accidents. I still do not know whether they went up slightly or went down slightly. All I know is that they were not significantly different.

Here in Nassau County NY all the red light cameras are full-motion video cameras. It has been reported in the newspaper Newsday that there is a sensor under the asphalt that detects when a car has crossed the stop line. When that happens a strobe flash is activated.

Going straight through a red light is clear-cut, but stopping just past the stop line is not, and making a right-on-red is not.

If you receive a summons you can view some still frames from your video. The camera sees the red light with your car in the intersection and also a closeup of your plate.

If a car enters the intersection on green trying to turn left, but cannot because of oncoming traffic, and the light turns red, it is legal to continue the left turn when it is safe to do so. However, in NY State, only one car can do this. The second car is in violation.

dobs108

Just might some of the situations be?

Not that I'm trying to argue but I'd love to hear a circumstance where running a red light is the right thing to do.

It's snowing, and the trucker behind you with a full load is sliding towards you laying on the horn....

but what about getting off the side of the road?
Or, u-turning?

Certainly one of the options ONCE you might find yourself in such a situation is to run the red light - all I am pointing out is that there may be other options. Running the red light might cause a t-bone or kill a pedestrian.

Then, the Monday morning quarterback questions will be what the driver in snowy conditions was doing? Was the car stopped at the intersection and the only reasonable course of action to getting out of the path of the rear approaching truck was by pulling out through the interection - either straight through or turning right on red? Or, was the car going too fast for conditions and got caught by the conbination of the yellow light and the rear approaching , sliding truck?

Who knows?

That was, however, a really good situation you set up, so we will score this for you.

[/quote]It's snowing, and the trucker behind you with a full load is sliding towards you laying on the horn....[/quote]

ROTFLMAO Do you have any idea there was snow in Redwood City, CA? We're talking about one of the most temperate climates on earth. I think the chances of that happening are about the same as Jimmy Carter being re elected for President.

That's awesome.

It's snowing, and the trucker behind you with a full load is sliding towards you laying on the horn....

OK, I'll give you half a point on this one because of your comment on "defensive driving"

Kind of a far fetched scenario however possible. The only thing I can point at is if one was really being a defensive driver why didn't they simply change lanes to give room to the tail gaiter, that intersection has adequate lanes. I would think if you had a enough time to make an evaluation of someone being too close AND no one in the intersection you should have changed lanes prior to evaluating the intersection

Making a U-turn in front of a truck that's not stopping, how is that even possible without slowing down? That's not an option.

Getting off to the side of the road while it's snowing is not a valid maneuver either. There would be no traction, and it would probably cause the accident to happen anyway.

I'm taking two points away from you for not offering valid solutions.

No one set the parameters of the intersection of this hypothetical situation, so how can you assume that a person would be able to change lanes? There are instances where this happens on a two lane road. How do you change lanes at that point?

Also, it doesn't even matter if the truck is tailgating or not. If they have a full load, it's much harder for them to stop. It's better to give them the room they need, rather than taking an impact to avoid blowing a red light.

In my area the actions of the red light runners are so ingrained and so common that you had better think hard and look in the mirror before you stop at a light that just turned red.

If I see an SUV behind me at 50 mph and he is tailgating 20 feet away, I have a good idea of his intentions!

While stopped at an intersection with a four-lane state road yesterday my light turned green, after which SEVEN cars ran the red light in front of me at 50 mph! (and no red light camera)

I don't know what the answer is...

dobs108 - Nassau County NY

As I am in Nassau County as well (Glen Head area), I can probably guess which of five roads that would be. Only this past year have I noticed an uptick the problem with red light running. In the past, I would see one occasionally but now I can see incidents every day I drive. Of the roads I travel, route 109 is pretty bad and there is no RLC coverage there (yet?). At least Glen Cove Road is getting covered now and Marcus Avenue as well.

I was up in Mississauga, Ontario a week ago and they have an extensive network of RLC's. Funny thing is, I never once saw any issues at either the RLC intersections or non-RLC intersections. I think in at least that area, the Ontarians have gotten the message. I would even stop when the upcoming light went yellow since I did not know the timing of the phase and did not want to risk a ticket. No drivers gave me looks or grief as they too were slowing down when the light started to change. Contrast that to the intersection of Marcus Avenue and New Hyde Park road where on the few times a year I go by there, I usually see a flash of the camera taking a picture.

I always said "It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for"
I must say we are getting way too much government now.
It's all about the money for the elected officials and their poor spening habits.

I read that first line, and thought "sounds like he's from the north shore...."

The original poster didn't say they wanted a scenario for running THAT red light....

rkaufmann87 didn't say he wanted a scenario for running THAT red light....

the question was a general one and when I responded, I treated the answer as a general one (and scored the answer as a good one - even though it was a bit far-fetched). What the answer illustrated to me was that it is not that easy to come up with a reason why one should run a red light.

Note that many camera opponents use such an argument because they are out of factual reasons to object.

Red light cameras are all about safety, are they not? In the name of safety, to avoid an accident, sometimes it is necessary to blow a red light in order not to be hit by someone behind you. It's not far fetched, and it is a valid reason. If I were ever to get a ticket in that situation, I'd gladly pay the fine because it would be a lot cheaper than all the aggravation that goes along with an accident. Avoiding injury and loss of life is what red cameras are all about, right? I'm all about that too, but I realize each situation is different. It's not all black or white, or red or yellow. Red light cameras are either or. Either you go through a red, or you don't. It doesn't care why you go through.

I am assuming that you have read the #13 post in this thread where the situation posed was being at a red light in a snowstorm and seeing a truck sliding and blowing his horn and about to hit you.

Your example means that you have been watching the road behind you, you are aware that someone is tailgating you, you have not yet taken defensive action and now you see that the light is about to turn red so you make the necessary calculation about stopping distance for you and the car behind you, determined that even though you will be able to stop that he/she behind you will not and they show no indication of changing lanes, you have checked the perpendicular traffic for vehicles and pedestrians and determined that you can blow the red light without possibly killing someone. Wow!

Actually I lived in RC when it HAILED about 1.5 in. back in 2007, got pix to prove it. Lived on a hill and I had a laff when people slid all the way down thru the stop sign at the bottom. Of course that is RARE and the scenario is more than rare, most people don't look in the mirror at a stoplite and wouldn't react fast enuff to get out of the way in any event. I think the larger issue is the idea that whole hog monitoring is a valid way to control a populace. Went to England where they believe this is the way to go, gave me the creeps seeing those tilt, pan, zoom cams wheeling around as you walked on the street. If that's the America you want to live in then ignore this thin edge and join the ranks of 1984/soylent green/big brother. Once you allow one type surveillance under the pretense of safety it will impossible to remove the dependence on the money it represents. Recall the last time you heard a tax stream was removed, Just recently some courts have allowed the covert GPS monitoring of a suspects car WITHOUT a court order. This crosses the line of enforcement vs civil law. Makes me grateful I won't live to see where this is headed.

The Red Light cameras are as efficient at reducing traffic accidents as the lottery money was suppose to improve our schools!

What? Are you asking a question? I have no idea if you were making a point, or asking something. Also, I think the example was given in post #11, not 13.

I have two questions for you.

1. Have you ever driven in snow?

2. Do you work for a RLC company?

When a light is turning from yellow to red, there shouldn't be anyone or anything in the intersection yet. Even after the light turns green for cross traffic, it would take cars a few seconds to enter the intersection, it's not instantaneous.

Further, once the light turns red, if you did not have time to stop with a tailgater, you've just blown the red. There is a difference between a "fresh" red and a "stale" red. It's not like the argument here is, just go through the red, you don't have to stop ever. It's when the light changes from yellow to red, and you just crossed the threshold that sets off an RLC.

(1) I have driven in snow. and (2) I do not work for a RLC camera

Instantaneous it isn't, but...

Having just a few days ago listened to the driver’s education instructor who has been giving lessons to my grandson tell him about turning left on what the instructor called an “unprotected left” , I will repeat what he said. When there is not a specific left turn arrow, the instructor told my grandson that he should pill partway into the intersection (that is, over the white stop bar usually at intersections). Then, when the light turned yellow (since he would already be in a lane of traffic), be prepared to move smartly to complete the left turn. That would seem to be a situation where there might be someone in the intersection.

Pedestrians on the opposite side of the intersection walking perpendicular to , and headed to the left of, someone blowing a red light would certainly have time to start into the walk lane, especially if there are multiple lanes. Plus, pedestrians usually react to light changes more quickly than do cars and thus move faster into the road. Also, since cross walks keep cars further from the intersection, pedestrians start right at the lanes rather than 6 to 10 feet back as the cars might be.

... so I stay with the statement

From the Illinois Rules of the Road.

"Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way laws tell drivers who goes first in different situations. To yield means a driver gives the right-of-way to another driver or pedestrian. A driver must yield:

To oncoming traffic when making a left-hand turn. If you enter an intersection while the light is green, you may finish your turn even though the light turns red.

Even after the light turns green when there are vehicles in the intersection."

Both of those cover your points. The person turning left must yield to oncoming traffic. Even when the light is green, yield to traffic in the intersection. There is no rule encouraging pedestrians and cars to enter an intersection when it is not safe. If there is a car being chased by a semi, I would hope that others around the intersection are aware of the situation, and act accordingly.

Interesting that we would now be debating whether the "other" person would be required to follow the rules of the road while the hypothetical person who is justified in "blowing a red light" is not.

When it comes to life or death, sometimes blowing red lights makes sense. I'm not for blowing red lights to cause accidents, only to prevent them.

My point is, even if the light is green, does not mean you can go charging into an intersection. It doesn't give you the right to put yourself and others in harms way. There are times when you must yield, and if you don't, you get the ticket. Rules of the road are meant to be broken, but the laws of physics can't be.

I thought of another reason to blow a red light. Taking someone to the hospital. I had to do that once because the light wouldn't change. I did not get a ticket, but if it was a red light camera, I would have.

You changed the parameters again. If it is "life and death" you are postulating, then I think most of us would permit an otherwise illegal traffic action.

My challenge to your previous scenario was that one really has to be almost omniscient to determine that the action to avoid the accident will not itself cause an accident.

I agree that the person in the intersection turning left should follow all of the traffic laws. However that was not at issue.

The situation was that someone would have to have superhuman decision making abilities to be able to assess the situation and decide that the act of "avoiding" a potential accident would not itself cause an accident.

The answer was not complete because there was also a pedestrian who had stepped into the crosswalk across the road.

This is the situation I had thought someone would present a long time ago. I sounds so good but, upon inspection, is generally not a very smart way to proceed if one is "blowing" red lights (which you did not say was true in your case)

When might it be OK? Perhaps in the middle of the night when traffic is light to start with and the lights of perpendicular traveling cars can be seen and their speeds anticipated.

However, during the day, it is more likely to cause a delay in getting to the hospital because of being involved in an accident. Having taken some of my family to the hospital in emergency situations several times, I know that I was distracted by looking at my wife to see how she was doing and this created the potential for an accident due to my lack of complete concentration on my driving.

If your scenario had said something like approaching the redlight with reduced speed (and you had on your flashers and were rapidly and forcefully honking your horn), and then, when the path was clear, proceeding to "run" (as opposed to "blow") the redlight, most people would grant the wisdom of such action.

I have seen fire department supervisors do this many times (with the red light on top of their vehicle also flashing) Police officers answering a call and fire trucks routinely go through intersections this way.

Still, what you and I are demonstrating for those reading this thread is that the cavalier approach of saying that there are numerous reasons why it is OK to run a redlight are just a weak defense mechanism of those who oppose red light cameras.

I really did like the turn right on red to avoid an emergency vehicle answer above. Indeed, that would be exactly what a driving instructor might suggest.

I think the 'cavalier approach' and 'weak defense mechanism of those who oppose' is speculation on the reader's part.

Now that we have established that there are indeed safe ways and acceptable (moral, if not legal) reasons to go through a red or yellow light, the fact remains that a robotic camera makes no distinctions. Those espousing that viewpoint may indeed 'oppose' cameras in that regard, while still conceding that they have some benefit. 'Some' is also relative to the reader's actual belief.

I don't think the rules have changed much from when I drove an ambulance 40 years ago. Our ambulance corp would allow us 5 to 10 mph over the limit without a police escort. With an escort, it was up to us if we could drive safely while following a police car. We always had to slow to a virtual crawl at all intersections. We never went to the "other" lane or approached the other lane to pass a car in our lane unless we absolutely and positively sure of the other vehicles seeing us.

Taking someone to the hospital still does not give the right to anyone to speed or run red lights. The police officer that might "catch you" can be forgiving, or might not be.

Interesting read, but no real surprises.

Let's see - how many morally acceptable reasons have we established for running a red-light?

There are a couple - but certainly not "numerous" reasons. Did you count them differently?

The red lights equipped with the count down timers (in my opinion) give drivers from both directions more time to react to the light changing from green to red. This seems to be a safer solution than Red Light Cameras.

So what do you mean by morally acceptable? If by morally acceptable you are only referring to obedience to the law, then no, there wouldn’t be a situation. But if it is tied solely to the notion of the safety of others, then would it be morally acceptable in a situation where there is no apparent danger to others?

The situation could present itself in an early morning scenario, say about 4:30 am, you’re stopped at a redlight in an area where the line of sight in all directions is clear and you can see there is no other traffic on the streets and you’re wondering “what the hell am I waiting for?” Now I’m not talking about blasting through a light but proceeding through a light after assessing the situation by slowing down or stopping, then turning left or going straight.

It seems to me, that a human being capable of free will and rationality would not necessarily have to abide lockstep to a clockwork universe of laws especially during times when the law appears irrational and when breaking it will do no harm to others. Now, I’m not talking about habitual disregard of the law in general but rather of the supposedly rare instance that may present itself.

There are times though when the law can be oppressive and must be answered by a higher ethic. If one identifies oneself and his thought as the contemporary product of the Western tradition of the Enlightenment and its emphasis on questioning dogmatic authority then I cannot see how one can deny the individual conscience as a source of guidance despite its fallibility. Following in this regard, one is obligated to resist totalitarian and/or collectivist tendencies if one recognizes it as such.

JD4x4 had said "acceptable (moral, if not legal) reasons to go through a red or yellow light" so I used the term "morally acceptable" to distinguish the term from "legally acceptable". JD4x4 and I had both agreed that running a red-light was illegal.

I am not sure I am able to debate "Free Will" in a forum such as this. Not only that, I do not think it would add to our understanding of Automated Traffic enforcement.

That said, your comments are thought provoking.

HI,

There were no fatalities exactly at the intersection. Fatalities are only one indicator of safety. I looked at DOT's Fatal Accident Reports for 2004-2009:

latitude,longitude,name,desc
37.49156111, -122.21928060, 1081737780, 1
37.48952500, -122.22260560, 1088522161, 1
37.49124444, -122.24075000, 1101120780, 1
37.48858889, -122.21127780, 1143549661, 1
37.50029167, -122.25304720, 1142985361, 1
37.48941389, -122.21108890, 1144727281, 1
37.48861111, -122.21196940, 1179859800, 1
37.48825833, -122.20991110, 1194750300, 1

The name is the UNIX epoch. When was the camera installed?

Cactusmitch

What previous scenario? I thought we were talking about the semi/full load/snow hypothetical situation? I wasn't changing any parameters. I would think if someone were to full on stop in front of a semi, they could die. Is that not life or death?

No one would ever think while trying to avoid an accident, "Gee, if I avoid this accident, could I possibly be causing another one? I think I'll just go ahead with my accident to prevent any others from happening."

You're the one that changed the original example. You can throw in whatever "what ifs" you want. Doesn't mean that we're all going to focus on what you've decided is happening in the pretend scenario.

Blowing or running a red light, what's the difference?

If you can't get the gist of why a person might go through/run/blow a red light to take someone to the hospital, I don't know what to say? To compare ambulances, police cars, fire trucks to a civilian is not fair. Where I live, most intersections are equipped with sensors that change the traffic lights in favor of emergency vehicles, so I don't know why were talking about how it used to be? Even if the intersections are not rigged in such a way, emergency vehicles can still go through/run/blow red lights.

I didn't go into detail about blowing a red light to go to the hospital, because I didn't think it was necessary to go into detail to get my point across. Apparently, I was wrong.

I think JD4x4 said it best in response to going to a hospital.

As a firefighter trained in life support and a driver of a tractor-trailer fire apparatus for nine years in a company that responds over 5,000 times a year, I must give you my opinion.

If a person needs medical aid quickly an ambulance must be called. Why? Because medical aid begins in the ambulance. This applies to all serious cases including heart attack, stroke, person not breathing, trauma. If you drive someone to the hospital it could kill him. If you wait for the ambulance it could save his life.

It follows that if the problem is not so great that you are driving to the emergency room, drive according to the traffic regulations. Do not speed, and wait for every red light. That way he will get to the hospital.

Here is the law in New York State for emergency vehicles such as police cars, fire apparatus, and ambulances: Display red, and white, and blue (if equipped) emergency lights. Sound the siren and air horn. Stay within the speed limit at all times. Make a full-stop-and-proceed at every red light ahead.

Now I don't think that every emergency vehicle makes a full stop at every red light, but the driver is held fully accountable if there is an accident, and in the last nine years, I haven't had any.

So, the next time you are driving someone to the hospital and you're thinking about going through a red light, do you feel lucky today, do you?

dobs108

Here are some of my favorite reasons, I seem to remeber, when to proceed through an intersection when the light is illuminated red:

- When necessary to prevent death, injury or property damage.

- Dedicated right-on-red (or left-on-red) yield lanes.

- Dedicated and marked “thru lanes” not requiring a stop.

- When the light and/or sensing equipment is obviously malfunctioning.

- When your vehicle is not of sufficient mass to trigger the sensing equipment.

- When instructed to do so by a law officer or official representative of the governing Dept. of Transportation.

- When clearing an intersection that was entered legally.

- When clearing an intersection for police, ambulance or rescue.

- Funeral processions, parades or any other sanctioned or approved phalanx of vehicles or pedestrians.

- Fleeing acts of aggression during war time.

- When acts of man, nature or God create situations where stopping is not physically possible (e.g. brake failure, stuck accelarator).

-------------

Oh...for those who are perpetually naive, I will not elaborate. Neither will there be supporting links or references or footnotes.

To use a popular phrase, I find the above to be "self evident".

If you do not agree, have decenting opinions, or questions -- then I refer you to your: local law enforcement office, department of transportation, city council, or local library for further instructions and information.