Had time to kill yesterday (watched cameras for 15 min)

You are suppose to Stop at a Red Light, that's the law in all 50 states. I can't understand why folks go crazy over this.

Just stop! and no problem.

Ever since I was a kid learning to drive and earlier than that, when traveling with my parents, red lights have been associated with stopping the bloody car. Now with the advent of red light cameras so many people seem to be all upset. Yeah, I believe they are secretly a source of income for our incompetent politicians, but the law for stopping at red lights has been around for at least as long as I have been driving, and to my knowledge is still on the books. So why in the hell are so many drivers upset that it is a bit more difficult to blow that red light without getting caught? If you find it so difficult to stop at a red light or you are just so stinking self righteous to feel the need to stop, why are you even driving. Obviously you deserve nothing less then a personal chauffeur.

Or is it that you associate a red light with a red light district and it brings back childhood memories?

The law in all 10 provinces and 2 territories also expects you stop at a red light. However, I regularly see people run the red. In most cases there is a small delay for the light to go from Red to Green for the other light. This was intended to make sure that the intersection was clear before the motorists enetered the intersection.

Now these red light runners seem to take advantage of that delay and treat it like a late amber. No wonder there are accidents.

In my area 80 percent of Red Light Camera summonses are for right-on-red violations. The problem is that the RLC contractors who are monitoring the full-motion video of a right-on-red are holding drivers to the letter of the law when a police officer on the scene would use discretion. The stop before turning has to be a full stop with no movement, and the stop has to be before the stop line and not over it.

dobs108

How long before someone tries to chime in that there are three territories, forgetting that one of them doesn't have roads at all (Nunavut)?

The law is the law and if we stop like we're supposed to it shouldn't be a problem. The problem comes when the cameras malfunction and tag you when you were in fact complying with the law, or better yet, when cities shorten their yellow light timing to increase their revenue.

If you stop for the 1-2 seconds then go on right-on-red, no ticket. Easy as that! If you can't do a complete stop before the line, then don't drive!!

I really tied of people saying this stuff. I have been driving for 47 years now without a ticket, why, because I follow the traffic laws.

This is not a reply to dobs108, just to all.

People have been getting ticketed for these for decades now. Except a camera is doing it, instead of an LEO. I'm not feeling much sympathy for those people, or red light runners.

When the light turns green, I wait for 2 seconds and make sure no one is barreling through the intersection first. Saved my bacon a few times.

Amen

Twenty years ago my son was walking to school and was hit by a guy running a red light. My son was in the hospital for three weeks and had a lot of brain damage and broken bones. He is OK now but it was close. Since then I always looked around when I cross an intersection checking to see if somebody thinks they can make that amber light.Please, Please, be careful going through lights and while I know a lot of you think it is a money generator, if it can save one life a month or year, it is worth it to me to have them in place.

but the people behind me get annoyed and start blowing the horn. I fixed that by going real slow as I approach the red and stay back from the line for the distance that would equal about 2 to 3 seconds. When the light turns I have my built in delay for the idiots that want to run that light.

Personally, I don't care if they do. It's my safety that's concerned. Lay on the horn all you want.

They're next on the list for Darwin's culling of the herd as far as I'm concerned.

Anything a RLC can do a cop can do. A police officer can also pull you over and see if you have a license, have insurance or have a warrant. I think knowing who is driving the vehicle is pretty important too. A traffic cop can easily write double triple or four times his pay everyday so if you really want traffic enforcement hire cops and have them write $2k a day in tickets then go do whatever
else needs to be done.
They can write enough to pay for their wages, the court when you ask for a trial, the jail and then some. I find it amazing so many see nothing wrong
with a private company in cahoots with a city with the only goal being money. And that is 95% of it in the end.

I police witnessed a man rolling, not stopping, at a right on red. Now we all know that red means stop and legally you can make a right turn after a complete stop. Anyway the police man pulled the driver over and proceeded to inform him that he he was being cited for not stopping before making the right hand turn. Well of course this individual wanted to argue the point that he stopped. So the officer asked him to get out of the car and to come to the back of the vehicle. Well as the suspect got to the back of the vehicle the police man started to beat the daylights out of him with his club. The suspect started yelling, stop, stop, etc,.. The police slowed down the beating and as he did this he asked the suspect "Do you want me to "Stop" or stop like you did at the intersection?

Moral of the story, stop means stop not slow down. If you did not stop at a red light before making a right turn you just ran a red light and deserve a ticket.

Second moral of the story, make sure to have a camera to record the beating you just took.

I've heard that joke as "Now, do you want me to stop, or just slow down..."

Here in the Tampa area, the local newspaper reported that the police reviewers are rejecting 45% of the violations sent to them by ATS before mailing the tickets. While ATS may be in it for the $$$, the local police are interested in public safety.

johnnatash4 ... Cherry Hill, NJ???

I know of an intersection just like that there, only west and north being checked.

.

All of the points made in this discussion are valid. Come to a complete stop when making a right-on-red, don't run the red, etc. Although I've never gotten a RLC ticket, my problem with RLCs is that I get the ticket even if I wasn't driving. A case of guilty until proven innocent. Could I avoid the fine by providing the information about who was driving? How do I prove it?

I completely agree with the recurring sentiment of "obey the traffic laws". but if I'm accused of a violation don't confront me with R2D2. The use of observational / tracking technology is a slippery slope.

Why does a "complete stop" need to be done on right turn on red when there are no vehicles in any of the other three entrances to the intersection and no pedestrians around? The energy lost by requiring a complete stop rather than a rolling stop can be a significant contribution to the energy crisis. The same can be said for the timed lights without traffic sensors where vehicles sit idling, waiting for the idiot light to change, again, with no other vehicles in any of the other three entrances to the intersection and no pedestrians around. We need some common sense with traffic laws, not just logic-free rules.

I noticed that the Illinois vehicle code says that if there are no pedestrians in a marked crosswalk, a complete stop is anywhere prior to entering the intersection, regardless of a marked stop line or crosswalk.

How many times have you been driving down the and somebody comes by and you say "Where in the **** did they come from?"

This is why a complete stop is required, somebody can be speeding and when you look, nobody is there. You look back in the direction you are turning and "BAM" you just pulled out in front of somebody. Yes they were speeding, they may get a ticket, but you did not yield the right of way to an oncoming vehicle, you may or may not get a ticket either.

Kind of like our crosswalk law here. If a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, not on the sidewalk, a driver is required to stop and let them proceed. That same law also requires that the pedestrian must make sure it is safe to step into that crosswalk before proceeding.

Example 1: Speed limit of 25MPH and I'm 100 feet from the crosswalk there is plenty of time for the pedestrian to step into the crosswalk and for me to stop. Everybody is safe.

Example 2: Same crosswalk and the vehicle is 10-15 feet from the crosswalk. There is no way, under normal conditions, that a vehicle is going to safely stop.

But yet because of the first portion of the law the pedestrian thinks they have the right of way no matter the conditions.

Stop at the stop light or sign before turning right. If you have a green arrow then you are allowed to proceed without stopping. No arrow, stop.

who are so anal retentive, uptight, inhibited, super strict law and order types.

Since you feel that the strictest interpretation of the law is required, how do feel about having the government install a device in your car so that it will electronically interact with sensors on the side of the road or implanted in the roadway every 10 feet that measures your speed, and every time you car exceeds the speed limit by one mile per hour you are fined $50 with no limit on how many fines you can receive?

If you don't want to be fined just stay under the speed limit.

Some of the logic and reasoning displayed here is frightening.

Progressive Insurance is working on that as we speak, sort of. http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot-discount.aspx Don't know why anyone would want this type of stuff riding along.

I admit to speeding, I have gone through a few yellow light even though it is illegal in my area. I have gotten speeding tickets and tickets for going through a yellow light.

With that being said I have yet to blame another person for my wrong doing.

Now as far as going through a red light, I will stop every time that I can safely do so. If and when I have gone through a red light the yellow was so quick I was not ready or I felt the vehicle behind me was too close to wind up with too much damage.

I will tell one thing for sure, the first time you or a loved one gets hit by somebody running a red or yellow you will be screaming where is the LEO, where is the camera, where is "whatever" to show what happened.

As I said, I have broken my share of laws. I paid the fine willingly. But when it comes to a red light or stop sign, "STOP"! I for one have witnessed to many crashes and close calls because and individual felt they were in to big of a hurry to have to stop.

In short if you cannot do the time, or pay for the crime do not do it.

The days of law enforcement knowing what your vehicle is doing is here on some. Look at "OnStar". I bet they already know your speed if if you do not pay for a subscription. Also OBD3 is supposed to have the ability to send a message to your dealer so that they know your vehicle is due maintenance. It is coming. The only way to avoid it is to keep driving an older car until it cannot be used safely or is outlawed which ever comes first. And they will eventually outlaw what we drive today.

This is what I mean, why come to a complete stop! Because it the law, that's why? Get a scooter then.

That's why it's not a moving violation. No different than a parking ticket-it's a ticket against the vehicle, not the driver. One thing they've done here in Chicago is put countdown timers at some of the RLC intersections so you know what to expect about the light turning red.

I would like to offer a particular red light camera intersection in Fox River Grove, Illinois. This is a T-bone intersection. The red light camera is set up to catch people making right hand turns on red. That should be the first red flag. There is no way to run the red light by going straight through the intersection.

I've heard and read that people get tickets even when they come to a complete stop, and stop behind the white line. There is no law in Illinois that states you have to stop for any amount of seconds; it's merely, "come to a complete stop."

Now if people were complaining that they were getting tickets by turning left on a red light, that would be a completely different situation. Since it isn't, it's quite clear what the true intention of this red light camera is.

The comments back up what I'm saying.

http://theexpiredmeter.com/2008/11/fox-river-grove-gets-firs...

That is the main reason I have the POI-Factory RLC in my GPSr, knowing that I will be making a right hand turn where a RLC is located gives me the choice of turning before that intersection and not having to deal with the hassle of impatience drivers behind me when I come to a complete stop or RLC taking a picture if I don’t stop long enough.

But if I'm driving thru the intersection with an RLC I'm at the ready to either make a quick stop or put pedal to the metal.

If you got a parking ticket, as the owner of the car you are responsible (guilty) - unless perhaps you could prove the car was stolen.

The defenses for the RLC situation would be faulty equipment or a mistake as to the license plate such that it was not really your car. If the owner swears that someone else was driving and gives the name, then then will not be fined.

As someone mentioned above (45% not sent out), not every possible violation is forwarded to the owner. Often a grace period is applied - for example the car entered the intersection a few tenths of a second after the light had turned red - or a rolling stop that was very very slow and no one was endangered.

If 45% of possible violations are not sent out, it seems reasonable to say that this is similar to what a LPO would do.

Most people do not note that the violation given by a LPO gets on one's driving record and might have an impact on keeping one's license and the cost of insurance. For those that are in a really big hurry, the ATE method is less onerous than the LPO. Think about that.

Not in the sense that the person driving the car gets the ticket, not the owner of the car.

Of those 6 or so vehicles you observed going through the red, how many caused an accident?

Sorry. I agree. It should be three territories. Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut. Absolutely no slight intended.

With respect to the comments by Why Not, I have to ask, you never speed? Even 1 mph? I haven't gotten a ticket in several decades too but I've been lucky.

I also think the comments on red lights are simplistic. There are lots of easy decisions but also some that are not so easy. There is a zone before the light where you have to decide to stop, quickly, and maybe get rear ended or go on through and maybe be in the intersection when the light goes red. I never enter the intersection on red but I occasionally exit it on red. I don't like it but I have done it.

I get frustrated by the people that enter the intersection after it's red. I'd like them to stop doing it. But I don't know that the cameras are the answer. This is a study by the government showing most of the benefit in reduced right angle crashes are offset by additional rear end collisions:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

I must follow some of you to intersections. I really do not like people slowing down for the light. Begging it to change for them. Don't you have anywhere to be?

I have seen reports of governments reducing the yellow light time to generate more revenue. I don't know if it's true or not.

I do not think it is as simple as just stop when the light changes. There are difficult decisions when you are right at that zone where stopping may not be totally safe. I really don't believe some of you never exit the intersection on red. And I do not need you slamming on your brakes at the first hint of yellow.

Jim

Can't we all just drive normally? Seems like we're always looking to beat the system...

People no longer know how to drive normally or properly. Everything is about "me" and nobody else matters is how most people drive.

If people did drive normally and properly there would be no need for idiotic laws against common sense. We would not need RLC's to catch people going through a red light.

Most drive like they'll die before they get to Walmart for that 'Roll-back'!

Regardless of having a RLC or not, everyone has to make decisions and what is asked of everyone is not to "enter" the intersection on red. I hope most jurisdictions have employed the "all red" intervals which are intended to let all cars going in one direction clear the intersection before letting the other direction start.

If there is some RLCs where the combination of the posted speed and the yellow light interval are not in sync, then that should be brought to the attention of authorities. However, if a car is traveling over the posted speed limit and then decides to slam on their brakes to avoid running a red light, they should get little sympathy if they are rear-ended.

The "abstract" of this link says "There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems." We can debate whether the glass is half empty or half full, but there still was a modest benefit.

@JimD1, I did not follow the comment about "slowing down for the light". Have not experienced this myself nor have I seen people slamming on their brakes to stop at the RLC in my area.

There have been several well documented instances where that was the only conclusion I could come to. I researched them and responded in a post last year I believe. But there are very few.

Just yesterday I exited a RLC monitored intersection on red (that is, I saw the light turn to red before I made it through the intersection. However, I entered on yellow.

That's the issue isn't it? Beating the system is basically people driving normally in this day and age.

In reflection of some of the other posts... I see two extremes being represented (as well as alot of moderate folx too). Some who are sticklers to the law with good reason and others who feel the law sometimes trumps some scenarios where common sense might prevail. But a law is a law after all and there is no right-minded legislative branch of any local/state/national government that is going to spend the man hours to try and write up every scenario conceivable on how to drive in a traffic light intersection. That is also the reason why safety will always be the hallmark reason for why we have these laws (versus some of the other equally legitimate reasons for having these laws).

I would argue that human nature tends to take over in some form or another when we drive. I would contend that following the letter of the law is difficult to follow for any sustained period of time (sustained meaning weeks on end at a minimum). Society feeds this problem especially in the metropolitan areas with the hustle and bustle. So in some sense I'm bothered by those who claim its so simple to just stop. Yes! They are right -- but its a little complicated. And I believe many of us understand how a fight with the spouse, mood-swings, bad work day, weather (good or bad), nature's call, having a bloody nose, listening to music, or just circumstances in general can easily influence our decision-making when we drive. I would peg those who are taking some self-righteous stand about it like life is perfectly reasonable and so should your driving as probably those who don't have a good handle on those little nuances about people.

At the same time, I totally agree with those who have explained over and over again -- you just NEVER know when you might miss something at a traffic light and so you just got to stop (i.e. stop worrying about wearing out your brakes, or wasting energy, or whatever). Safety must be remembered. I just try not to have such a harsh judgmental attitude to those who don't follow the letter of the law -- because I've been on both sides of this discussion. We need to continue to encourage people to be safe -- but I don't try and marginalize someone's shortcomings in driving because if there is anything I know about those types of drivers is that I don't know a whole lot about them and their circumstances. And more and more -- that is coming into play with how we drive (more so than say 60 years ago).

Flash went off as I approached red light in left turn lane. No one in intersection (including me). WFO. Wondering when the photo will arrive and what to do...

In Philadelphia, PA most traffic light controlled intersections also have "walk" signals and these have count down timers for the pedestrian to know if there's enough time to cross safely. For motorists, when the walk counter gets to zero the light changes to yellow, so it serves the same purpose you mention.

The problem with that in my area is that there are sensors that control the lights and by doing that, you would not hit the sensor and the light would not change..

13 Factors That Caused America's Fatal Crashes in 2009

Listed are the fatal factor, the number of peopled killed in 2009, and the percentage of deaths this factor represents.

1. Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted speed limit, 9,654 deaths, 21.3% of fatal crashes

2. Failure to keep in proper lane, 7,696, 17.0%

3. Under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medication, 6,957, 15.4%

4. Inattentive (talking, eating, etc.), 4,196, 9.3%

5. Failure to yield right of way, 3,067, 6.8%

6. Overcorrecting/oversteering, 2,062, 4.6%

7. Failure to obey traffic signs, signals, or officer, 1,922, 4.2%

8. Swerving or avoiding due to wind, slippery surface, vehicle, object, nonmotorist in roadway, etc., 1,801, 4.0%

9. Driving wrong way on one-way trafficway or on wrong side of road, 1,382, 3.1%

10. Operating vehicle in erratic, reckless, careless, or negligent manner, 1,347, 3.0%

11. Vision obscured (rain, snow, glare, lights, building, trees, etc.), 1,205, 2.7%

12. Drowsy, asleep, fatigued, ill, or blackout, 1,202, 2.7%

13. Making improper turn, 1,168, 2.6%

That's over 42,000 people who died in crashes and number 5, 7, 10 and 13 can all be directly correlated to intersections.

Do you have a link to this? I'd be interested to see the other stats they might have.

I was also curious about what other stats they may have on accidents. I found the list quoted in an article that referenced the following document:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811401.pdf

It seems that 2009 is the most recent version of the document published in 2011.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/cats/listpublications.aspx?Id=E...

The full annual report rather than just the summary can be found at the above link as well.

Thanks for the links. I'm surprised to see that North Dakota's fatality rate jumped up at over 30% from '08 to '09.

NYC has an exemption -- just ask a NY'er.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that a car must not stop at a red light.

Why is this mantra always rolled out?

Why include something that everone already agrees upon into the argument?

Giving the "just stop...no problem" answer is a convienient way to avoid and shift the argument away from the REAL issues RLC detrators raise.

Whats stop at a redlight...1 sec. 2 seconds...hr? Stop isn't as cut and dry as you think.

Raise an issue and we can discuss it.

your point is....?

... it's when the wheels stop rolling.

Its not a convienient way to avoid and shift the argument away. Because you want a cop to catch you passing a red light and not the RLC's. Or its just to get money from us for the town's treauary. We could go around this for the next ten years and people won't agree.

So in the mean time, people should just stop at the red lights!