went through a rlc intersection

My reading of the reporting was that "some areas" was limited to Baltimore. The error rate was 10% which, in my opinion, is way too high.

There was an earlier story also. Here are the transcripts of both of them

Dec 30,

It wasn't just limited to Baltimore. It clearly states,

"Cheaper and easier than radar guns. But class-action suits in Ohio and New York attack their reliability. Los Angeles stopped issuing camera tickets altogether."

That's why I said, "some areas."

You said that"The error rates were quite high in some areas."

While the transcript said "... class-action suits in Ohio and New York attack their reliability. Los Angeles stopped issuing camera tickets altogether.", there was no mention of error rates at all - let alone any being "quite high"

You are correct if what you intended to say was that there were several cities where the reliability was being attacked.

I think the way I described the report was accurate. If you want to find fault with how I word things, or what I mean, or what I'm trying to convey, that's your thing. The moral of the report, or the meaning of it, still stands that the accuracy of the cameras is a problem in some areas.

You initiall said:

Most recently you said:

I can only react to what you post.

You chose to label the reporting as an "expose". That will get some people excited about other statements in what was said next.

You made a claim the "error rates were high in some areas" when Diane Sawyer's specific comment was "One city's launched an investigation because of so many mistakes.". Her reference was to Baltimore.

Had you simply said initially "that the accuracy of the cameras is a problem in some areas.", I would not have commented at all because that statement could be supported from the transcript of the ABC news report through the words "class-action suits in Ohio and New York attack their reliability"

However you chose to say that "The error rates were quite high in some areas" [emphasis added] which was not supported by the reporting. That to me was a misrepresentation of what was said (as I heard the newscast) and I sought to correct that misrepresentation by providing the transcript so that others could decide for themselves.

You might want to read
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-01-28/news/bs-ed-speed...
to get some perspective on the 10% error rate.

You want to correct something that doesn't need correcting.

Your original post said

Let me add other information.

Diane Sawyer led off by saying

That one city was Baltimore.

As I said previously

Note the reference to "[o]ne city's ... investigation" Not several cities, not "some areas" - One City.

The ABCNews report dealt with Baltimore and gave no information about other "error rates" but said only that "class-action suits in Ohio and New York attack [camera] reliability". Lacking data about error rates in in Ohio and/or New York, it was a misrepresentation to claim that the ABC report said or implied that "The error rates were quite high in some areas".

You started out by saying that "World News Tonight did an expose on red light and speed cameras" [emphasis added], but failed to mention that the news report was about "error rates" only in Baltimore. You did not know, I assume, that the reported "error rates" were based on a review of one day in May of 2012 on 37 of the city's 83 speed cameras - although you now know this after reading the link provided. You did not know at the time, or I hope you would have mentioned it , that the audit was a "look back" at the performance of the previous vendor, Zerox. At the moment, we have no data on error rates for the current vendor, Beckford Corp.

Expose? - not hardly

"some areas"? - no, only in Baltimore and only a look at one day over a year and a half ago by the previous vendor.

"quite high"? - yes, I think an error rate of 10% is quite high and the sample of about 1,000 tickets would be enough to make a conclusion.

but we seriously need more cams. On Tuesday after the bad weather, peoples' tempers and patience were very short. I witnessed a Passat 4dr coupe (that kind with the low roof line) gun it, run a light, and nearly hit a pedestrian. Then the driver backed up. the ped was so upset he walked up to the car and was shouting like a lunatic. The driver simply kept the windows up and acted like he was on his iPhone. At minimum, he should get a $490 fine for running the light. I mean I saw it, too bad a cam didn't. Let's face it, if there are no consequences, behavior will not improve. There was probably a time when the driver would have been removed from the vehicle and persuaded to acknowledge his actions were wrong. But this is 2014 and people have rights. lol

The cams need to be banned. An actual police officer could have handled that situation very effectively.

There is no sensors in the road (the sensors in the road are to identify there is a car in that lane to modify timing of lights)
It's all video
The flashes are timed with the light and they flash all the time.
Its only to get a reflection off the plate for a better view in the video.(especially at night)
Just do a search on video of read light camera and you will see many examples.
This one is near my house (in fact I went through it 2 times yesterday.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k5UmguCJ4U

We can expect more & more automation of traffic control. It's efficient if it's not exactly implemented honestly all over. The revenue is needed given elected officials inability to deal with just saying no to more expenditures.

Until the public stands up & un-elects someone for implementing cameras for revenue, we'll simply get more.

Fred

Maybe this will help.

http://www.wfla.com/video?clipId=9818262&autostart=true

Everyone should look at this one.

I have seen politicians lose elections in a couple of places because of this, but not often enough. And the red light cameras were removed as well.

While in NJ and other states what you say may be true in Philadelphia PA the sensors in the road trigger the flash. I've seen it many times, a car passes the sensors in the road and the strobe flashes, even when someone just drifts a little too far but then stops, they don't flash all of the time, only when a car passes the sensors.

I work for a company that mills and paves highways. When we mill through an intersection with the sensors in the road we damage the sensors and that camera no longer takes violation photos until they come repair the strips. This is one reason places are getting away from the strips and going with a RADAR activated camera sensor.

How they work in Philadelphia, PA is explained in the following video put out by the City of Philadelphia from the 1:18 mark of the video. The example you showed is included in this YouTube video as well as one other "motion" clip, these "motion" clips are not from Philadelphia, PA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8y7Acx5xLM

.

mrphil and soberbiker -

Good videos!

I wouldn't want to hit a streetcar in Philly!

was a banner day. Saw someone rear-end another person: From my vantage point, the perp expected the vehicle that he rear-ended to run the red light. It's an intersection where oddly the City removed the no turn on red. Some may not pay attention and sit there by habit, but for the most part, NOBODY comes to a complete stop.

As I continued, the next intersection is a major intersection desperately in need of a camera. When my light turned to a solid green arrow left, a City dump trunk ran the light. I put my hand on the horn, and the dump truck honked back.

29 tons > 1.5, so dump truck wins, every time. With a cam? At least he pays every time he wins.

I had a bad experience with one of these things several years ago. I started through the intersection behind another car, who, for some reason decided to stop in the middle of the intersection suddenly, leaving me half in and half out as the light changed to red, I had no choice but to continue through the light, which I would have made if the car in front of me hadn't stopped. I couldn't have backed up because other cars had moved up to the line in my lane (a left-turn lane). I tried to appeal the ticket, but my appeal fell on deaf ears. I had to pay the fine (which, here, is not treated as a fine. It is a civil thing and if you don't pay, the city files a civil suit against you). The fine is only $60 (half of the normal amount) so no one in their right mind would spend the money to defend themselves in court.

I really like the final clip where the idiot runs the light and slams into a Florida State trooper.

On Long Island, it seems a red light camera means that you cannot turn on a green light in the left turn lane if there is a green arrow that's not lit. The camera may give you a ticket even though there's no red arrow... Oh, the uninformed....

When I was a teenager still driving my Dad's car, I got into an accident with a police cruiser. The phone call back to my Dad was NOT fun.

My wife crashed into a police car when she was learning to drive.

Take out all the red lights they are an absolute nuisance here in Arizona. You just don't know if someone is going to stop or not. Seen way too many rear end collisions.

Is he allowed to fill out his own accident report, or does a stupid-visor have to do it?

No, another officer was called to investigate. I wasn't sure I was going to get a fair shake. His written report said we were both at fault - 50/50. We're talking back in the mid-60's.

I could imagine someone not interested in a fine either speeding up and slamming into the car ahead or reversing hard and slamming into the car behind. A catch 22 created by these RLC.

If the yellow is at the minimum you don`t have time to leave the intersection in time and you are caught. The intersections with red-lights are conical with less time on the yellow. The excuses, are excuses to validate their actions. They lower the time on yellow light to grab more drivers.
For the advocates of red-lights, no one like run yellow nor red-lights, but the city and the company knows to caught more they have to hide the truth.

you have right of way. If the light turns red when you are in the box you may proceed to clear the intersection when it is safe to do so.

I have not yet found any jurisdiction that would issue a red light camera ticket to a vehicle which had entered the intersection (ie., passed the stop line) prior to the light turning red.

You sound like you are saying that a vehicle has to clear the intersection before the light turns red. Is that what you think? If so, what state do you live in?

You make a good point. Every jurisdiction has different laws to get you.

Yea that's a tough one to believe. If you're already past the stop line and the light turns red you won't trigger the camera to take a photo. I seriously doubt, for places where the cameras are also video, that there's someone that watches every second of film looking for violations.

Previous postings have included statements by LEO and others stating not every video is monitored or even reviewed. From what I have been able to deduce from articles in newspapers and others that have been posted over the years is the camera must flag a particular entry in the log file showing the flash was tripped. The reviewer would then go to that section of the video to view why the camera tripped. If it's shown there is probable cause, the video was supposed to be forwarded to the designated LEO who made the final determination. If this scenario is correct, then it is in the judgement of the reviewing officer the incident is a violation. If I remember correctly, the speed of the vehicle is also measured using either the radar or laser and that would play a role in my making a decision if it were up to me. A vehicle just over the line and doing more than the speed limit would be shown less tolerance than one at or below the posted limit as their speed could be interpreted as "intent."

It would be like saying you can be convicted by technology, when you didn't commit the crime. That is not to say technology is 100% perfect, it is not. But it would be like saying you went up to Leavenworth for armed robbery, even though the video showed you didn't do something.

Assume the law is that you cannot enter the intersection after the light turns red.

The RLC work by sensors embedded in the road sensing your wheels crossing the line of the intersection.

Ok, but what about if the front of your car has crossed that line while the light is yellow, but the wheels cross when the light has turned red?

You have legally entered the intersection, but will be tickteted by the RLC.

The sensor triggers the pictures showing if there is a violation.

If there is a picture of a vehicle whose front wheel is behind the stop line and the light showing red; then a second picture of the vehicle passing through the intersection, then a ticket is possible. Some jurisdictions give .3 to .5 seconds of grace by looking at the video.

What you know about Pennsylvania law is absolutely false. You can enter an intersection on a yellow or a green ( for example to make a left turn) and you can clear the intersection after the light turns red. You may not enter the intersection when the light is red.

What I am saying is that the front end of a vehicle can enter the intersection legally on a yellow light, but the light can change to red before the front wheels have entered the intersection (tripping the RLC sensor). The laws are written about when a "vehicle" enters an intersection, not when a vehicle's "wheels" enter. In other words, you are legal for the distance from your front bumper to your front wheels, but you might still get a RLC ticket that is wrongly issued.

What you are really saying is you had no intention of stopping for the signal because the light was changing. Lord help the driver in front of you that did decide to stop because the light changed from green because your radiator would be in their back seat.

If there is no picture of the vehicle showing it was behind the "stop line" and the light at that instant being red, then a ticket should not be issued.

In your scenario, the front of the vehicle would be over the "stop line" when the light turned red so there could not be a picture of your vehicle behind the stop line with the light showing red, could there?

I don't see how you got that from what he wrote, at all.

From the fact he insists on pushing the limit in that if any part of his vehicle is across the stop line he is "golden." That, to the average person states he would rather chance running the light than doing the prudent thing and slow down and stop.

there has to be either multiple pics or video. If all that happened was one pic were taken when there were a violation, then it would be guessing which vehicle committed the offense.

This is technology, why do so many question whether a video can get it right or not? imho most of the people stating the technology is faulty, are really just against the notion that they can be so easily caught today, for something they consider a privilege to begin with (not stopping for a red)

Motorist is making a left turn in an intersection controlled by a traffic signal but without a turning arrow. At least in NY it is OK to enter the intersection and wait until it's safe to make your left turn. In many cases that won't be until the light turns red.

NYC has rules about "blocking the box". It's not OK to enter an intersection, even on a green light, unless you'll be able to go through the intersection before the light turns red. Drivers get a ticket for being in the intersection after the light turns red. I don't think RLC are currently being used to enforce that law.

That is right and only one car can do this legally. If several cars are lined up in the intersection waiting to make a left turn and the light turns red, when the first car turns left it is legal, but the following cars are illegally going through a red light. The answer is that the second car should not enter the intersection in the first place.

dobs108

I don't believe there is a 1 car limit. The dependency is if you have crossed the line on green.

Two more business as usual things this past week at work. Person who stops behind the line on a complete green, and does not wait until the next cycle to even go. STUPID.

Also, Friday coming home, my license plate in the pic/video as I was waiting at the stop line and three cars blew the light. I am very confident I will not be receiving a ticket. Again, cannot show my car in the intersection after the light turned red.

The other day, the light turned from green to yellow and my wife stopped just past the white line and just after she completely stopped, the light turned red. She did not move the vehicle at all during that entire phase of being red. The light turned green and she made the left turn at the intersection at that point. No ticket.

I assumed that a trigger for the RL camera was located at that white line, underground or beneath the road. Hence, even with being just past that white line during the red light phase, not showing any motion at all seemed to be effective in not triggering the camera at all.

In my area of Nassau County, New York, the cameras all have full-motion video even though they send a still picture with the ticket. The sensor for triggering the camera is two wire loops imbedded in the pavement just before the stop line. The strobe (flash) does not necessarily operate if the lighting is good. Just because the strobe flashes does not mean you get a ticket.

The way you described it, the actions of your wife are completely legal in any state and I would not worry about it. She acted in a safe manner because a driver going in the opposite direction could have run the red light while your wife was turning. You do not have to clear the intersection before the light turns red. That said, it may take months to receive a ticket if it is coming.

In Nassau County, every time a camera shows a possible violation, an employee of the red light camera contractor watches the stored video and evaluates it. If they see a violation, they notify the local authorities who have a police officer review the video and make the final determination.

dobs108

"JohnNatash4" said in part...

That's when a $5.00 "Spring Loaded Center Punch" comes in handy... and there's NO hand or arm movement to use it!

Nuvi1300WTGPS

And you can get them anyplace that sell tools (even Sears)
Not against the law to have one. (they use them in case of an accident to get a driver out of his car)

I have to admit, my feeling towards the cameras is one of indifference--still no tickets. I would still prefer to know where they are installed. But the right thing to do is to put them everywhere, so that traffic is consistent.

When I have had loaner cars that have that feature which the motor turns off at a red light, and starts back up when one lets off the brake, I found myself not even annoyed at poorly timed intersections, which I believe is the reason for red light running.

How many red lights does a person run in Manhattan? Very few, because if one waits, gets a green, and drives the proper speed, one is likely to go 20-25 miles all green. No reason to run reds--they are properly timed, so running one red, means running tens of dozens of reds, unless one were able to accelerate to an unreasonable speed.

Where I come from, the lights are timed so that I have to stop, every. Single. Time. It's infuriating. There's one main street in particular, where the cross streets don't have any other lights in the vicinity. Taking the main street will be timed in such a way, no matter which direction, or time of day, or what kind of mood you're in, you will have to stop at all the lights. I really want to meet the guy that is responsible for that mess.