Dayton, OH

I guess you can add Dayton to the growing list of places which have been found to have shortened yellow lights in conjunction with the cameras, but is anyone really surprised by this?

Make up the shortfall in tax money somehow that's all there is to it!

@Tom, I am going to ask you to read the article one more time and point out where it says or implies that Dayton "shortened" yellow lights.

As you are likely aware that has been an issue with me - people using "shorten" or "shortened" as a way to inflame feeling about Automated Traffic Enforcement.

As I understand the article, there are 4 intersections where the duration of turn signal yellows does not meet the state requirements. If true, they are "short" and have been for a long time. This is quite different from "shortened".

To your comment on the "growing list of places which have been found to have shortened yellow lights" [emphasis added], would you please provide a list. I assume that you have been keeping track.

If I have missed such places, I want to get my facts straight. I am aware of Oakland, CA and possibly Alexandria, VA. Also, there was a short period in which the Florida DOT changed minimum duration yellows and Tampa Bay "shortened" yellows; however, after outcry, the DOT increased the minimums.

It really doesn't matter whether someone went out and intentially shortened a yellow light or intentionally or negligently never made the light meet state standards. The end result is the same for the unfortunate motorists who go through those intersections and the city, state, or other local government in charge of the light is responsible and usually profiting from it so there is little incentive for them to change it. It looks like you have more than enough of a list even using your narrow definition of the problem. Google 'red light cameras short yellows' and you will find additional examples regardless of whether it is just short or shortened.

It may not matter to someone passing through who receives a ticket, but it'll matter a lot to locals that drive the area every day. If the light has always been short, you know it's short, and plan accordingly. If the light gets shortened with a RLC, that's deceptive and should be illegal. I know of a couple of shorter lights in my area, and thankfully there are no RLC's, but if there were I'd be prepared for the short light.

While the "end result" for the "unfortunate motorists" is indeed the same regardless of the reason for a "short yellow", it does matter whether you are making factual statements.

Yes, I have been through Google with the search for "red light cameras short yellows" (and many variations thereof). I note that you did not take the time to follow the links and read the articles. The top link is to the National Motorist Association (which is an anti ATE organization like thenewspaper.com) and whose article I have debunked numerous times in the past. One of the top articles does not even mention "short yellows".

Provide facts, please. It really does matter.

Bottom line, the city or other government entity is responsible for making sure lights meet all standards including the timing. If they don't, they are responsible whether it was changed or whether they just didn't pay any attention to it. This goes for non-camera locations too. It couldn't be simpler than that. Quit trying to confuse the issue.

Facts really do matter and you are trying to obfuscate the issue by stating the obvious. I do agree with you that jurisdictions are responsible for meeting all standards including the timing.

However, @tomturtle, I am still asking you specifically

You made a statement that the reasonable reader would treat as factual. When I made my request of you for facts, you tried to divert attention by telling me I should

When I noted that it seemed that you had not even read any of the links that appeared from that particular Google search, you switched to the comments that it doesn't matter to someone caught in a violation whether the timing was short or shortened. I have agreed with that.

Recall that I commented that the article that started our dialog made no mention of the timings being "shortened". You chose to use the word - perhaps in an attempt to paint the city in a bad light.

Shortened implies that timings were at one duration and a decision was made to change the timing to a lesser duration. It implies an activity.

If a jurisdiction purposely "shortens" timings to generate revenue, that is one fact of a proactive action with certainly negative (and maybe illegal) implications. If a timing is found to be "too short" that is quite different fact which requires correction but does not imply being done on purpose. And yes, the impact on the poor souls caught is the same to them regardless.

Now - once again - can you provide facts about growing list of of places that have shortened yellow lights"?

Shortened to me means that it does not meet standards for whatever reason. It is not my job to do research for examples that meet your definition of it. I provided you with a google search that provides multiple examples of cases where the timing appears to have not met standards. That is enough.

@tomturtle, you seem to want to make up your own set of "facts" ("you can add Dayton to the growing list of places which have been found to have shortened yellow lights in conjunction with the cameras"[emphasis added]) even though there was nothing in the article suggesting or implying that Dayton had changed yellow timings.

Now, since you are unable to produce any supporting documentation that would support your originally stated "facts", you now also want to have your own definition of "shortened". Instead of, say, the Merriam-Webster which says " to reduce the length or duration of", you assert that "shortened" means "means that it does not meet standards for whatever reason."

So now - with these changes in facts and definition - you can now assert that the google search you suggested does provide examples of timings that did not meet standards.

How can I argue with that?

PS: I an reminded of some words from "Through the Looking Glass", by Lewis Carroll

I have to agree with jgermann on this one.

There's a difference between having traffic lights that have yellows that are too short and having traffic lights that have yellows that were deliberately shortened after the addition of RLC's.

Tomturtle, it doesn't matter what definition you want to use or even what words you want to use. The argument you are making (I believe) is that yellow lights are shortened to increase revenue and your argument is probably that this is ethically wrong, unsafe, and illegal.

Suspend your disbelief for a second and assume that state law requires all lights to have a 4 second yellow light. Then study these two scenarios:

1) At the intersection of main street and first street, there is a light. Before the RLC was in place, the yellow was 3.5 seconds. After the RLC was in place, it remains at 3.5 seconds.
2) Same intersection but now before the RLC was in place the yellow was 5 seconds. Now that the RLC is in place, the light was changed to 4 seconds.
3) Same intersection yet again--before the RLC was in place, the yellow was 3.5 seconds. To comply with standards, the company installing the RLC changed the yellow light timing during the installation. They were supposed to change it to 4 but the mechanic's finger slipped and it's actually at 3.5 right now.

To me, all of those scenarios are wrong--some ethically, some illegal, and I argue all of them create safety issues. But not all of them go to prove your point that RLCs do nothing but generate revenue.

In the cases of 1 and 3: both scenarios are illegal and presuming the 4 second state law was set after a study they are also unsafe. But in neither case was there an intent by the city to mess with timings just to create more tickets.

In the case of number 2: nothing is illegal about this scenario, but I argue that it's the only one that is ethically wrong. I'm making the presumption that no research was done (otherwise there would be a study saying the 4 second timing is just as safe as the old 5 second and this is a moot point) but there 5 second timing was placed by the engineer's office after some research some years ago for a safety reason. If the city changes that to 4 seconds without further study, then it creates an unsafe situation, but it also goes to prove your point--the city is changing yellow timings just to increase revenue.

So while you (tomturtle) are correct in arguing that the cities are engaging in illegal behavior when their timings are too short, you have failed to prove that there is a correlation between shortened yellow lights and cameras. "which have been found to have shortened yellow lights in conjunction with the cameras, but is anyone really surprised by this?"

The problem is we are only getting one side of the story. People are looking for shortened yellow lights at the RLC intersections--but if it is just negligence on the part of engineer's office then there could be quite many more intersections that are mistimed and just no one bothers to sit there and time it.

To me, you haven't supported your statement that yellow lights that are of less duration than required (what you are calling "shortened") have a correlation to the RLC cameras and certainly not that yellow lights are being changed to be shorter than what is required (what jgermann is calling "shortened")

Also, a google link is not enough by any stretch of the imagination:

" I provided you with a google search that provides multiple examples of cases where the timing appears to have not met standards. That is enough."

If google were enough to prove a point, then I'm an idiot for spending many late nights in college typing away at term papers when I could have just submitted a google link!

I too would also like to see a list (that you or someone else compiled) of alleged shortened yellow lights (whatever your definition of shortened). I can't imagine there is much of one that's current since I would guess that lawyers would have already torn through it to find proof of maleficence, but I'd accept one of previously proven cities as well. I do believe that Oakland was found to be doing this but I can't think of any others off the top of my head that came to fruition.

Just a couple of comments, particularly about point 2. One of the examples often cited about "short" yellow lights touted by the "revenue enhancement generators" crowd is the issue a couple of years ago in the Tampa Bay area where some yellow light timings were changed to less than the calculated value using the oft cited Institute of Traffic Engineers formula which equates to approximately 1 second of yellow for every 10 MPH in posted speed.

In the Tampa case, the speed on a state maintained highway was 35 MPH which would, according to the rule of thumb, equate to a 3.5 second yellow light time. However, the controller timing the light cycles was not capable of providing half second intervals. The only timings that could be used where either 3 seconds or 4 seconds. Now we run into a grade school math problem of how do you do rounding on a fractional number. I was taught in school if a value was more than half, you rounded up so 4 seconds would be the setting but if the fraction was less than half you rounded down to the next whole number of 3. Well, in the technician's understanding 3.5 is not greater than half so therefore rounding down was permissible and that is what was done. This resulted in the "short cycle yellow" that was touted by the press as another example of the county out to fleece the motorist by short cycling the lights to drive up revenue.

That "rule" of math still applies, fractions greater than half can be expressed to the next higher whole number while values less than half can be expressed s the next lower whole digit. But what do you do with a number that is exactly half. The math rule I was taught says you could go either way and still be correct however, common usage is that half or more is now expressed as the next higher full number.

Let's bring in another factor, the "dilemma zone." This is typically stated as the area where a motorists upon detecting a change must choose between two outcomes. One choice is to brake and stop for the red signal period, the other is to proceed. Too many drivers decide by increasing speed, I won't have to stop and therefore not delay my travel.

At 35 MPH, you would travel almost 180 feet during the yellow cycle time. Assuming the typical reaction time for a driver is a half second, that means the zone is shortened by about 25 feet, a little more than the typical vehicle length.

In the Tampa case, the dilemma zone became approximately 155 feet and after subtracting reaction time left about 128 feet to stop. I think we all can agree in this particular instance the driver was placed into a situation where the likelihood of triggering the camera greatly increased assuming the driver was traveling at the speed limit and made no changes. However, a driver entering the intersection after the light had cycled red by more than that half second was clearly in the wrong and would have tripped the camera in any case.

So yes, the signal timing was too short and it did deserve to be brought to the attention of the Florida DOT. The District Secretary, after reviewing the facts did make a ruling changing the way the outcome of a formula were interpreted in that any fractional result were to always be rounded up to the next whole increment. This resulted in many signals having their timings adjusted upwards even if the signal controller could correctly display the signal for the calculated time. And people still "blew the light."