Camera predicts red light runner

This would be an excellent device if it works. And, if it IS effective, it might be relegated to the trash heap unless government can figure out how to send somebody a bill or ticket.
They seem to favor safety especially if it makes money.

from the 12 red light cameras over $7 million.

Seems to be a good idea if it works.

They didn't get down in the weeds as to how this would work. It won't be cheap.

A simple Radar unit just compares the frequency of the output to the frequency of the received (bounced back) signal to determine the speed. Now you will have to determine the distance, as well as the direction (could track vehicles in other lanes - signals at those frequencies do bounce around a lot). Or, they could use Laser technology. Still, quite a bit more cost and with complexity you get more un-reliable.

I can see some folks making a game out of this. They will learn that they can run the light and not cause an accident. Then they will dream up some way to hide their license plate so that a photo will do no good. Then when the system fails - BINGO! Another major accident with fatalities.

I think it opens the door to more problems. Especially, when people take advantage of the delay - regularly and then the system fails.

From the cited article: "Of course, some revenue would be generated by the cameras. How much would be determined by a contract with the company providing the cameras...Instead of buying the cameras, the city would agree to pay the company a certain portion of the revenues collected by the cameras."

Would you find it acceptable for a city to set the salary for a police officer as a percentage of the revenues collected from the traffic tickets he or she issues?

Why then is it acceptable for a private company to be compensated by a local government based on how much revenue is generated from the citations it enables?

Direct compensation of individuals or private companies based on revenues from prosecution of citations issued by that entity will continue to lead to abuse.

The technology, not the camera interface. It's called the connected vehicle which has a radio transceiver installed in a vehicle that broadcasts its position, speed and direction of travel every 100 MS. Other transceivers installed in the infrastructure and other vehicles communicate with each other to enable the whole thing to work. There is a year long large scale pilot currently getting started in Ann Arbor MI which will have over 3000 vehicles transmitting messages to each other and controllers located along side the monitored roadways. Emergency vehicles will be able to modify signal timing to turn signals red or hold a red if they are approaching an intersection when responding. Not all the pieces are there, that's the reason for the safety pilot, to prove it works with a large number of users in a small area.

You can read more about it by going to the US DOT website and searching for Connected Vehicle.

When I was sitting in the hotel pub on my travels in Rochester a while back I was sitting with the guys selling , installing and repairing the cameras from Redflex Inc. I brought up delaying the green light timing if another car was running the redlight to the head guy. He told me that they are not allowed to have any physical connection with the redlights. They can monitor the lights using sensors but can not control the light in anyway. Nor do they have access to adjust the timing of the redlights. The city maintains the redlights.

I guess the reasoning is that they would be able to alter the redlight timing to benefit their camera shots.

I really don't know myself but that is his story, for what its worth.

I'd have to agree with your post, people will always push the limit to see how far they can go. Even with longer yellows than in the past, people are still running them with the idea they can make it through. I've seen yellows that are 8-10 seconds and people still run the red.

There are systems installed at intersections that help drivers avoid running red lights. They installed the countdown for pedestrians and in turn helps drivers see if there is time to clear the area safely. Pedestrians have a visual display and drivers can see the numbers coming down and stop gradually and not slam on the brakes.

Even though I prefer the countdown devices (and there are some here), most of the intersection electronic devices for pedestrians in my area are of an older variety - showing the "walking pedestrian" for "time available to safely cross"; the "flashing hand" for "you can cross if you hurry"; and, the "steady hand" for "not enough time to safely cross".

Still, these devices provide motorists with an indication of when to expect a yellow light and, thus, are helpful for gauging when to continue on or begin decelerating if there are vehicles in front of you.

You are correct. Many areas have these devices showing the hand. The hand is showing in some of them, but they are changing to numbers and with much brighter lights

If this happens, the person who ran the red light and changed the timing of the lights should get a double fine.

Whether the new tech for delaying green ever occurs or not...and I think it will not for cost reasons alone, I am a huge fan of the countdown pedestrian timers. On the redlight cameras I drive through daily only one has the timer, and it is exceptionally helpful.

They'll add an infraction: "delaying a green."