are rlcs becoming a non-issue?

 

If you look at this subsection of all discussions, there isn't much activity.

I spent more than a week in the GTA, and there were so many cameras, I pretty much said to myself, just don't run any red lights. To my knowledge, I didn't.

What I mean is in a unfamiliar environment, there's just no way a person can rely on a GPS unit nor a sign to warn of rlcs, and if there are enough, imho a person simply doesn't bother noting if an intersection has one, or does not have one. They simply stop at all times, before red.

When we are in familiar surroundings, that's when we have time to note which is, and which is not a rlc intersection. my .02

great point

Waterloo Region has a very limited number of RLCs. I just make a point of not running the amber.

I love intersections with countdown timers on the crosswalk. I never change my speed, but if its obvious that I won't make it hhrough, I aimply start slowing down a bit. That make sure the guy behind doesn't expect me to run the amber.

I don't have a problem hitting the stop line on the 1 second mark and going through on the amber. That's perfectly legal and you'll never get a ticket, especially if you maintain a constant speed.

--
NUVI2555LMT, NUVI350

crosswalk countdown timers might get removed in some places

I, too, like them to see how long you've got on the green. However, some have found them to increase the hazard to pedestrians.

SF Chronicle article link

I have never seen a problem

I have never seen a problem with red light cameras. They could install them on every intersection for all I care. It's not going to affect my driving. My issue is that here in Winnipeg, red light cameras are combined with speed cameras.

In addition to the fixed intersection cameras, the private American company who administers the program (and takes a cut of all ticket revenue) is also allowed to set up mobile photo radar sites in school and construction zones, often accompanied by poor or misleading signage. They also reduced speed limits to 30 KPH in many school zones here, EXPRESSLY TO INCREASE REVENUE for the city.

No one has been able to show how these cameras have reduced accidents. There has not been a documented case of a school kid hit in a school zone by a car, speeding or not, in the last 30 years. This is why these speed cameras are NOT the least bit about safety; they are designed only to generate revenue.

The city did a terrible job in passing the bylaw and it has been amended over 10 times since it was first passed in 2014. Even then, I notice school zones that don't exist in the bylaw (and thus aren't legal.)

I would much rather have a driver watching out the windshield for my kid than buried in their speedometer, checking their speed, date and time.

Well,

cratecookie wrote:

I, too, like them to see how long you've got on the green. However, some have found them to increase the hazard to pedestrians.

SF Chronicle article link

I can see how having countdown timers on crosswalks would be a danger to many Californians. There are many that can't distinguish between a bodily orifice and a depression in the earth while many others are so plugged into their devices they don't have any idea of what's occurring more than 5 feet in front of them. While there are exceptions to the generalization, the only reason more of the Darwin Award winners aren't eliminated through attrition is because of their vigilance.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

nobody's perfect

We all let our guard down at times. I feel I am very good with red lights, not so much with speed. So for me, I would prefer that there are not speed cams, but I see the reason for them...safety.

Today, I was on the way to work--I go through multiple rlcs and it has never been an issue since 2010 when I started at this location.

But, I carelessly was going 40 in a 25 this AM--unmarked boy in blue, DA**. Luckily, 40 was not enough to get him to move from his parked position. If that had been a speed cam, then I would have been busted as there is only a 12 mph leeway. If I had gotten a ticket in the mail, my thinking would be it s****, but it was my own doing. Do the crime, pay the fine....

re:I have never seen a problem

Chickenhawks wrote:

...My issue is that here in Winnipeg, red light cameras are combined with speed cameras....

I didn't know they were dual function. Sneaky.

I see

more and more talk about dash cams, I think it's a matter of price point.

Society imho is still in a "lying phase." Many lie first, think about the likelihood of being caught later.

Just last week I crossed a busy road--state law, stop for pedestrians. A lady in a Nissan cursed me out and didn't stop. One has to assume I could easily whip out a cell phone, and have video'd it.

Right now, it seems we're at about $375, for a HD front and rear dash cam--that likely is a bit steep except for anyone who just likes tech for the sake of tech. I got a GPS when the price got down to $300, which is steep today.

Once every vehicle is equipped with front and rear dash cams, even the rlcs should be no issue. If there is some way that the yellow was monkeyed with, or it issued a ticket when a vehicle went through on yellow or green, match up the videos. there is no way they could be any different, short of doctoring them....

Not Many Accidents Caused By Speed Alone

If you look at the causes of accidents, you'll find that speed is almost never the primary cause. The vast majority of accidents are caused by DWI, falling asleep, equipment failure, and/or distracted driving. Not speed. Thus, the argument could be made that all speed cameras exist solely to generate revenue.

talk about misapplying facts

RebHawk wrote:

If you look at the causes of accidents, you'll find that speed is almost never the primary cause. The vast majority of accidents are caused by DWI, falling asleep, equipment failure, and/or distracted driving. Not speed. Thus, the argument could be made that all speed cameras exist solely to generate revenue.

This is a great misapplication of the facts. While it is true that speed alone is seldom the single cause for an crash, it is almost always one of the contributing factors.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Speed is one of the top causes of traffic fatalities

RebHawk wrote:

If you look at the causes of accidents, you'll find that speed is almost never the primary cause. The vast majority of accidents are caused by DWI, falling asleep, equipment failure, and/or distracted driving. Not speed. Thus, the argument could be made that all speed cameras exist solely to generate revenue.

According to traffic stats from the Ohio State Highway Patrol for the year 2014, (the last year stats are available), Unsafe Speed accounted for 14.1% of traffic fatalities. The only factor that exceeded this figure was Failure to Control at 19.6%. The only other figure that came close to Unsafe Speed was Improper Lane Change/Passing/Off Road fatalities at 13.7%. If my math skills are correct, it appears that 47.4% of all fatalities are caused by these 3 factors. Therefore it appears that speed is a major contributing factor when it comes to traffic fatalities.

--
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. ----George Washington

Look At It This Way

If someone blows a tire, and they were going 1 MPH over the posted limit, then speed is listed as a "contributing factor". If someone falls asleep, is speeding, and wrecks, speed is listed as a "contributing factor".

Did speed actually cause these accidents? No. Did speed make the wrecks worse? Maybe, maybe not, depending on how fast they were going at the time.

My point was that speed alone is the cause of very few accidents in and of itself.

and i thought

RebHawk wrote:

My point was that speed alone is the cause of very few accidents in and of itself.

And I thought we agreed with you that speed alone was very seldom listed as the sole cause of a crash. (I refuse to call them accidents because there was nothing accidental about 99.999% of vehicle crashes.)

If a vehicle traveling at a speed above the posted limit for a segment of the road crashes into a tree, what is the cause that's entered on the police report? Most likely it would be related to the operator loosing control with speed as the contributing factor. But then again, why did the operator loose control? It was because they were traveling too fast for conditions. It's for that reason we have to disagree with your interpretation of crash statistics as the elements are often very deeply interrelated.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

What to put on an accident report?

Box Car wrote:

If a vehicle traveling at a speed above the posted limit for a segment of the road crashes into a tree, what is the cause that's entered on the police report?

Naw, the likely cause is ambush by misbehaving tree! razz

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!