AAA report: NYC Screwing Drivers Reduced Time Yellows at RLC Corners

I am I surprised. Here in the NYC metro area, RLC's are big business. Locally here on Long Island, both Nassau and Suffolk Counties are about to each double their cameras to a total of 100 bring the the island wide total to 200. Nassau has been complaining they have seen a revenue drop because people are actually obeying the lights. I guess they need to take page from NYC and shorten the yellow. 0.25 seconds sounds about right for a yellow light now (sarcasm).

Baltimore MD could probabl claim the prize for reduced yellow light time.

It is nearly non-existant.

Baltimore City made over 4 million just last year in fines. An independant study has proven that the time for the yellow light is WAY below other lights that don't have cameras.

It is just a revenue raiser. If they really cared about safety they would have standard and accurate yellow light times.

I don't think anyone should be surprised by this. This is just an easy way for politicians to rob the public. These cameras have never been about safety, just stealing money from motorists. They need to be banned everywhere.

Traffic lights with short yellow times can be as dangerous. If cities want safer intersections they should consider increase the time on yellow lights. I can see some one changeling the city about it.
Revenue is on thing but playing with the safety of drivers is not ok.

Do you consider parking tickets as a way for "politicians to rob the public"?

I am not surprised at all.

From the story: "The city Department of Transportation says the standard time it sets its yellow lights at is about a second for every 10 mph of the speed limit, or three seconds for the typical 30-mph intersection."

All fine and good. For a figure of merit it's about true that a light should be yellow ABOUT 1 second for every 10 MPH of posted speed. Now let's look at what AAA measured as reported in just the next paragraph.
"But the AAA engineers found that the city’s yellow lights at intersections with cameras were coming in as low as 2.53 seconds. The short timing was clear as day during a recent series of random reviews observed by The Post."

Now, let's see. does anyone know the posted speed for the streets where the measurements were taken? A lot of city streets, and I imagine it holds true for NYC have speed limits that range between 25 and 35. If you apply the formula from the ITE you will see the number that falls out is approximately 1 second for every 10 MPH on a level road. But timing also depends on the traffic laws. Does NYC have a permissive or restrictive yellow law? In a permissive situation, a vehicle may enter the intersection on yellow and there will be an all red signal phase allowing the vehicles to exit the intersection safely. In a restrictive yellow situation a vehicle must have exited the intersection when the signal turns red. Having an all red period is an option, but not a requirement. The length of time a yellow is required also depends on the width of the intersection. Wider intersections will normally have longer yellows but a narrower intersection will need shorter timing.

So, depending on all the factors, a yellow light of 2.53 seconds may be correct. I did notice they did not provide a count of the number of intersections surveyed nor any information about the traffic density at those intersections.

Good questions and observations

Thanks

There's a word for that. Crooks!

Any way to fight it???

With the way some of the parking schemes are set up today, my answer would have to be yes. They do it to generate revenue.

They are certainly revenue generators, but they serve also to help merchants by assuring that parking spots in front of their establishment are opened up throughout the business hours of that establishment.

What I was trying to get some comments on was the use of the word "rob". Fees and Fines are revenue generators, clearly. However, the Fees and Fines are paid by those who use or abuse the source of the revenue. Otherwise, the revenue would have to be generated by the public at large.

If we want services, they must be paid for. So, the question is who will pay. I do not consider that "politicians rob" the public when they establish such Fees and Fines.

What about you?

Government at work.

LOL that was funny.

My dad got two serious fines in Boston because he didn't read the sign. He told me he intended on writing a letter to get them waived. I was snickering and thinking, fat chance, he broke the law. Guess what? The City of Boston waived the fines.

The reason I believe that happened was that my dad admitted guilt. He never stated that he was not guilty. He stated that he was careless, didn't read the sign, guilty as charged, but would appreciate it if they could waive the fines as they were hefty.

I guess the politicians did rob the public here--my dad should have paid a fine that would have benefited society as a whole, and they didn't take the money from my dad.

And it also tells you which ones.

If you read lower "Confronted with AAA’s findings, city DOT spokeswoman Nicole Garcia defended the camera system, saying, “There is no legal requirement for the length of a yellow signal.”

She insisted, “Our practice is consistent with federal guidelines that ‘the yellow . . . should have a minimum duration of three seconds.’ This provides adequate time for a motorist traveling the speed limit to come to a stop.”" no speed, only 3 seconds!

Fines are supposed to be a punitive measure to discourage someone from breaking the law. Ideally you don't want people breaking the law, and if that was so, there there would be no fines.

Taxes, not fines, should be used to fund city services. Using fines as a revenue stream creates a conflict of interest: a revenue stream dependent on violations inherently requires violations, but the goal should be no violations.

The result is what you have here: corruption. Governments changing things like yellow timing to generate more revenue. They don't seem to care about the unintended consequences like more rear end collisions. People are being put at risk all because of money. If a person did this, they would be charged with a crime!

Consider what is the downside to increasing the yellow timing by 1 sec? Studies have shown this has negligible impact on intersection capacity, but it reduces RLC tickets and these city officials just don't like that.

Some New Jersey towns got caught doing this and the state suspended their programs.

Just what do you propose they use the money from fines for? The money normally goes into the general fund unless a specific fine is designated for a particular purpose. Revenue into the general fund from sources other than taxes reduces the tax burden on the other citizens and provides the opportunity to fund additional programs benefiting many.

There are lots of responsible things they could do with this money:

Put it into a "Rainy Day" fund. This could be used when the economy goes down and tax receipts dip. Likewise, the money could be used in emergencies like natural disasters. Or it be given back to the general population as a tax credit. Or it could be given to charity.

But it should be understood that this money is not to be depended on. It's only a side effect of punitive measures to get people to comply with the law. The main objective is to encourage people to comply. If that goal is achieved, there would be zero revenue from fines and that should be ok.

What it shouldn't be done is put into the general fund because it creates a conflict of interest. It means they want and need violations because their general fund depends on it. This is totally opposite from encouraging compliance to the law!

Bu isn't what you are suggesting using fines in lieu of taxes? Rainy day funds are normally receipts collected in excess of expenditures and paying bacj tax payers with a tzx credit is again stating the taxes are too high so we want to rebate you oon what you overpaid. (Now that's a thought, a politician deciding the government had enough money and didn't need more.)

The problem with budgeting is you have to look for all revenue streams, and that includes revenue from fines. The projected revenue from these other sources is used to help determine the tax rate everyone pays. If you have drivers that think they don't need to come to a full stop before turning right on red, driving 40 in a 25 or other traffic infractions being cited more, even by the automated devices, paying in more revenue than previously anticipated, that money goes into the general fund because of one reason. That is because the revenue is obligated so it can be used for any purpose benefiting the general welfare. That includes all the possible uses you stated.

Short yellow has been a tool used to increase revenue in place of taxes, etc.

Drivers need to investigate and complain.

And then VOTE like you mean it!

--They ONLY care about getting into our pockets! Period!!!

Safety has very obviously NOTHING to do with it, but is only spoken of as a ruse to lull us into allowing for these wretched scourges!!! Safety is the first casualty in this screwed up game.

--Remember them well at election time!

No, I did not suggest that. I even said the revenues from fines should not be depended on. Therefore, it should not be factored in the budget.

I disagree. Fines are a side effect of punitive measures and should be considered "unexpected revenue." It is unexpected because it could be zero. It is foolish and irresponsible to based one's budget on unexpected revenues. It would be like making your budget based on whether you win on this week's trip to the casino.

If some drivers constantly break the law, then punish them with fines and eventually take their license away. But here's an idea on what to do with the fine money:

Why not give the money back to all citizens who have not gotten any tickets? Wouldn't this be a great idea? This could be done as a reduction in vehicle license fees. This good driver discount would be an incentive for people to obey the law, which is what we really want, isn't it?

Turns out it's not what some people really want. From the responses I've gotten in this thread, it's clear that some people like this "revenue stream." They clearly like the money going into the general fund. They don't seem to understand the conflict of interest of using fine money to fund general services.

This is very discouraging and alarming. This will eventually lead to corruption and tilting of the table in favor of the "house" in order to bring in more revenue. And that's what you see now with the shortened yellow timing. Next it will be inappropriate reduction of normal speed limits. By definition they need more fines to fund services so they will need to trap more people, even innocent ones. Which is nothing more than robbery! Normally you'd go to jail for doing something like that.

I find it ridiculous to suggest that 2.53 seconds may be okay for a yellow timing, even on a slow road. It takes someone about 1 second of reaction time to notice the yellow and make a decision on whether they can stop safety. That only leaves 1.53 seconds to make the stop or go through the intersection. Why do we have to make it this difficult on drivers? It was all about safety we wouldn't do this. But obviously it is not about safety. It's about "revenue streams" and rigging the odds in favor of the house.

People should be furious and should hold their elected officials responsible. Get the word out. Check the yellow times in your area. If they're less than 3 seconds ask why. Then notify the news media. We need to shine light on these deceptive practices otherwise they'll get away with it.

I propose that each driver just mail in $100 a year and take the RLC lights and dispose of them.

People have cited articles where there are a few yellows that were found to be shorter than they should be; and, I think there was a situation in New Jersey where yellows were shortened for consistencies sake(but not to less that the guidelines); but, I am unaware of any reports of a jurisdiction that shortened yellow intervals for revenue purposes.

Can you provide support for your statement that "Short yellow has been a tool used to increase revenue in place of taxes"?

Municipalities with revenues are, in effect, giving the money from fines back to the general public because they do not have to increase other taxes.

I am glad you said "eventually lead to corruption" because otherwise I would have asked you to provide evidence of alleged corruption.

Not sure where the 2.53 comes from. Was it New York? If the speed limit is 20 or 25 miles per hour, the national guidelines say that 2.53 would be reasonable. Are you disputing this?

Rebuttal

You keep asking others to provide support for their statements and yet your own statements are inaccurate. New Jersey did not shorten their yellows for consistency. Certain towns did not comply with the statute that permitted the red light cameras to begin with. Part of the statute required the yellow timings to be adjusted according to the 85th percentile of speed that vehicles were traveling on that road. Some towns admitted they did not do the study to determine the 85th percentile speed and never set their yellow timings accordingly. For 63 of the 85 cameras in 21 towns, those 85% speeds had not been determined before the towns received approval to install the red-light cameras, according to the DOT. In other words, they were not following the law! At many intersections the yellows were in fact shorter than what is required by the statute's 85% rule. They're also required to inspect these timings every 6 months. There are several lawsuits pending because of this.

He does that....a lot.

I am absolutely stunned!

Red Light cameras have always been about the money and will always be about the money.

It ain't limited to NYC & Bloomberg!

Politicians need to get a clear message.

Fred

forget cars are easy targets.

What the **** does he have to do with RLCs in NYC?

While we're on this topic, there are so many false alerts with the POI file, I wonder if it's impossible to clean it up at this point? Or is the notion of too many alerts is better than none the way it's going?

In Nassau and Suffolk here on Long Island all the revenue is coming from right turns on red, not going throught the lights..If safety is the issue and not the revenue then pass a law prohibiting right on red like NYC does.. Keeping the people safe.. DONE.. They also re-designed the intersections moving the stop lines so that you are just going to cross over them when the light turns yellow.. Scammers.. Just do an easy Rate X Time = Distance calculation and you will see that you do not have enought time for a 4000lb SUV to stop within 3 seconds going 30, 45 or 55mph (the speed limit).. You would slide through the intersection when the ABS kicked in.. And on LI they put many cameras at one location and count it as one intersection.. NYC counts each camera as a location.. 150 in operation at a time.. Long Islands camera operation should be shut down by the New York State legislature for oversteping the guidlines.. If you can't tell, I am not on the side of these so called safety cameras..

Since state and local governments can't resist the temptation to abuse the public, how about this:

Clear LCD-equipped license plate covers tied to your GPS... when you are within 100 feet of an RLC-intersection, the license-plate cover turns black or grey, effectively blanking out the plate for a couple of seconds. Or for more stealth, it could temporarily mimic the tag # of your politician of choice, preferably the one responsible for the cameras.

We need the GPS to be able to pull a signal line high or low to do this, the license-plate cover will do the rest so we just need a GPS which features open-collector outputs, etc.

You could also have your RLC alert play a tone of a particular frequency or tone sequence at the beginning and then just have the plate cover trigger on the tone. That should do the trick.

- Phil

A few years back high school students came up with the idea of making fake plates for people they didn't like and pasted them on the back of their car. They then speed through speed cameras where a photo of the fake plate was snapped. The scheme fell apart when the car in the photo didn't match the car the plate was supposed to be on. White Corollas are not the same as silver Accords.

Corruption in the system? Does this surprise anyone?

His Royal pain in the ass, sorry I ment Royal Highness Bloomberg is the schmuck in charge that was the driving force that shoved these cameras at the residents of our great city.

the greatest city in the world. But its residents are so diverse that without rules, it would be total chaos.

Just two weekends ago as I was parallel parking, someone in his BMW 750li pulled head-in and took the spot. there is no other city in the entire world where that would happen. Lucky that my in-law pointed out there was a hydrant, or that person would have been in for a rude awakening, for real.

Why don't they just eliminate the yellow light entirely to really start raking in the dough? Have it switch from green to red and watch the bucks start rolling in.

I feel like I've been saying the same thing. If rights on red (rolling rights) are so dangerous, go back to the days when it was not allowed. But since a majority of the revenue for "going through a red light" is from rights on red, they don't want to shut down that maneuver because that wouldn't be profitable.

tkx

--That is about ALL there is to it!!!

They do this a lot in DC, red light cam and everything

Would increasing the yellow light time have any negative impact?

Some people claim that drivers will get use to the longer yellow and run the red even more. But I don't know of any study that has tried to quantify that. I think within a population, most people will stop for the yellow if it's safe, simply because they don't want to run a red and get t-boned by another car.

The only other possible downside to a longer yellow is reduced intersection capacity. This means there is less time for the green interval so you might not get as many cars through the intersection. But studies have been done on this and the impact to capacity by increasing the yellow interval by 1 sec is negligible.

So there is really no downside to increasing the yellow a reasonable amount so drivers can safely stop or clear the intersection. It's also a good idea to add an all-red interval. Even better is synchronizing lights so groups of cars get several greens at a time, thus moving traffic along better and keeping drivers in a better mood.

There are so many other ways to be smarter about how to address traffic and safety issues, but with automated enforcement cameras it's all about money and stealing from citizens. If it wasn't, they would give the fine money back to good drivers who don't break the law. Why not do that? No one can give me a reason why not. It's because of this: city mayor Steve Tumlin said "We want every dime we can get."

Mayor Tumlin and NYC's Mayor Bloomberg are, indeed, squeezing the good citizens. If they would give the driving public a fair chance by increasing the duration of the yellow light, that could lead to more revenue. A short yellow (2.5 sec.) may be the grounds to dismiss a ticket. Less dismissed tickets, more revenue. Just a thought...cz

--I see no harm at all with a reasonable increase to the yellow faze.

I would definitely say that this pretty much tells the whole story!

Emphasis added.

It is my understanding that the minimum a yellow light can be is 3 seconds. But that's just a federal "guideline."