The yellow light means "Clear the intersection," not "Slow down." The purpose is to give time to people crossing the sidewalks to finish walking over to the other side. Shortening them is a safety hazard for pedestrians like me who don't own a vehicle.
I don't live in Florida, but this is shameful and disgusting.
This is absolutely incorrect. Traffic lights are for vehicles. Pedestrians should be obeying the pedestrian signals and your cue to "clear the intersection" is the blinking red hand. Traffic lights do not switch to yellow until after the pedestrian signals are solid red hands.
This obviously only applies where pedestrian signage exists.
> the traffic lights turn yellow even when the yellow light has not become solid
I'm sorry, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Did you mean:
> the traffic lights turn yellow even when the "do-not-cross" signal is still flashing
If not, could you explain? If so, where do you live that the lights do this? I've never seen that behavior (although I'm the first to say I haven't lived many places).
The yellow light does mean "clear the intersection", but its purpose is not to give pedestrians time to finish their crossing. There are many things that have to clear the intersections, not just pedestrians. Plus, the decrease they talk about in Florida is only by fractions of a second, anyway.
Here in Toronto, we have an additional two seconds of "all red" light after any yellow lights, to give time for left-turning vehicles to finish their turn.
Plus, the decrease they talk about in Florida is only by fractions of a second, anyway.
The decision was made for poor reasons. There's nothing preventing them from making the same decision for the same reasons again, effectively increasing the reduction of time. It's important to call out poor behavior in government lest, even if it's slight, lest it become institutionalized and then exacerbated.
For some reason, that has never occurred to me. That is an excellent point that reducing the yellow not only increases the likelihood of traffic accidents but of problems for pedestrians as well.
I've seen enough crosswalks that go from solid red hand to a flashing red hand immediately, that I now ignore the flashing red hand until the street light turns yellow.
Shortening it makes it dangerous for a lot of parties.
There's an inherent conflict of interest when cities, counties, and states rely on traffic tickets as a source of revenue. The all-too-tempting incentive is to maximize that revenue, either by abusing civil rights or, in this case, by endangering public safety.
I haven't done a study or anything but after living in Florida for 5 years (coming from New York) I have to say that the motivation seems to come from a serious lack of other revenue sources for the state. There is no state income tax and so fee revenue is huge for the state and local municipalities. A few years ago, in central Florida, voters voted to decrease property taxes. When the measure went through revenues plunged. In response all fees at the DMV were literally doubled and a lot of public employees lost their jobs. The way Florida handles paying for itself makes no sense to me.
If people stop harder, they're more likely to get in an accident doing so. If you don't have ABS, stopping harder increases the odds that you'll skid. Also you're more likely to get rear ended if the person behind you isn't paying attention.
If you do that, you'll still cause more people to slam on their brakes to avoid running the red. Slamming on the brakes increases the risk of losing control of the vehicle, and of being rear-ended.
> It won't necessarily endanger the public if they add more delay between one light turning red and the other turning green.
This is usually referred to as a delayed green light. They are absolutely terrible for public safety.
There are drivers who look at the opposite light to get a cue as to when they should go.
It also pisses regular drivers off, because it looks like absolutely nothing is happening for everyone and they have to sit there and wait for no good reason. A yellow light, even a long one, at least shows some sort of activity and progress.
I work close to a fairly rare "no right on red" (in California right on red is legal unless signs prohibit it) intersection.
Without fail, near the end of the month there will be a cop car sitting under the bridge overlooking the turn for hours just waiting for someone to make the turn. Shamelessly sitting there, in the dark and under a bridge, blocking half the rightmost lane of a busy street, causing a far greater safety concern than would be caused by anyone taking a normal right-on-red at that corner.
It is a common misconception that officers have quotas to issue a certain amount of tickets per month. The quota is actual for how many traffic stops they make. You'll see behavior like this from cops who haven't met their quota, but it's not about the money.
Maybe not in large cities with some sort of oversight but in small rural towns with only 2 or 3 cops, it helps pay for their jobs and keeps them employed.
No, I don't really sympathize with people who get caught there very much nor did I say I did. But I sympathize far less with the cop who is doing way more to endanger my safety than the other drivers are, all in the name of scoring some easy stops to meet an obvious quota.
The people getting popped for right hand turns are the ones to the left in this image. The cop sits under that bridge in the shadow area without any lights on, taking up over half of the rightmost (leftmost from this view) lane. The difference in brightness between daylight and under that short overpass bridge is very high.
And despite all these tickets being issued in the name of 'safety', people still continue to slightly miss the yellow, not quite come to a complete stop before turning right, and fail to make a snap judgement correct 100% of the time. The accident rate remains fairly constant or goes up as the city rakes in millions (and the company that makes the camera gets theirs as well, which can be used to lobby for more cameras).
100% enforcement of traffic laws calculated with machine precision is mindbogglingly stupid, and proponents willfully bury their heads in the sand regarding the conflict of interest and the eventual outcome of such an arrangement. So yes, I sympathize with people committing what amounts to normal human error, and despise those who seek to profit off of it.
Is there a reason to believe that the police are trying to improve _traffic_ safety at this place? Perhaps they are trying to prioritize _pedestrian_ safety. That is, after all, why most no-turn-on-red signs are installed in California.
Seems extremely unlikely that they suddenly realize they need to increase pedestrian safety at the end of each month. I've been working there for about a year and the pattern of never being there and then suddenly appearing at the end of the month is unmistakable.
I had previously thought such rigid quotas were mostly urban legend until I saw the pattern repeat over and over with my own eyes.
When looking at the map that was posted two things are clear to me:
1. Blocking 3/4 of one of the lanes under the bridge is a danger to both motorists and pedestrians.
2. I highly doubt there are many pedestrians at this intersection. It is basically an industrial park and the road dead ends a block away.
An appropriate partial quote of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken."
<snipped>
"But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
Blind rejection is a useful heuristic, and avoiding effort is not necessarily laziness.
I drive rather than walking everywhere because I have better things to do with my time. I ignore, rather than specifically evaluating Ayn Rand quotes because I have better things to do with my time.
Oh sure, she might have accidentally said something both true and interesting every once in a while. And Mathgen[0] might accidentally produce a valid proof, if you run it enough times.
Avoiding effort with respect to transport gets you to work faster, which is most instances is the point of transport. Avoiding effort with respect to discussing ideas gets you bias, which is the opposite of the point of discussion.
So you're basically openly saying that you are willing to comment here, without considering the perspectives being put forth that you're replying to, which at the very least seems against the spirit of HN, and more realistically is against the process of rational thought in general.
>Avoiding effort with respect to discussing ideas gets you bias, which is the opposite of the point of discussion.
Avoiding effort with respect to discussing ideas that I can broadly (and efficiently) classify as not likely to be worthwhile gives me time to think about and discuss other ideas that are more likely to be worth my time. Does it "get me bias" if I ignore the rantings of a crazy person I see on the street?
>So you're basically openly saying that you are willing to comment here, without considering the perspectives being put forth that you're replying to, which at the very least seems against the spirit of HN, and more realistically is against the process of rational thought in general.
I didn't reply to the Ayn Rand comment. I replied to the comment about blind rejection, the perspective behind which comment I did consider.
"That's not a reply worthy of HN because it is mean and doesn't give any consideration to the topic under discussion" would have been a reasonable reply to thrownaway2424. "Blind rejection is intellectually lazy" was not.
It's bias if you decipher a logical point, and continue to believe something that is counter to it, without providing countering logic.
Deciphering a logical point may or may not happen depending on the context. It's more likely to happen in an HN thread than by listening to a crazy person.
Efficiency would necessitate not blind rejection, but a decision to simply not judge. Rejection is a judgment. Judgment without logic is a bias.
The "blind rejection" comment you originally replied to, was pretty clearly referring to judgment without logic. This is something different from intellectual efficiency, which would simply be deciding to not form a judgment at the time, if one reasonably decided that there was not enough information available at that moment to do so, and the importance doing something else outweighed the importance of judging the idea in that moment.
So, while I agree with a concept of efficiency or temporary non-judgment, I disagree that it's the same thing as auto-rejection, which is judgment.
By countering a counter to a comment advocating auto-rejection of ideas, you seemed to be advocating auto-rejection of ideas, as opposed to advocating non-judgment.
I guess auto-rejection is also technically an "efficient" approach, but it is definitely intellectually lazy. Non-judgment is not intellectually lazy, if actually used for the sake of efficiency and not avoidance.
Now I see that our disagreement is over definitions. To me, "blind rejection" of a quote is "I don't care what this quote contains because of who said it. I have stopped listening." Maybe that's what thrownaway2424 and jrajav meant, respectively, or maybe not. By the principle of charity, that's what jrajav should have considered thrownaway2424's comment to mean, but of course it is also possible that jrajav didn't consider that interpretation.
In any case, by "blind rejection" I meant "automatic disregard", not "automatic disagreement". I certainly agree that automatically disagreeing with a person, regardless of what they say, is a losing strategy except in the very specific case that you've encountered and conclusively identified the fabled Omniscient Lying Labyrinth Guard.
After you turn 30 you realize that not everyone will believe what you do or be right about everything, but when they are right about one thing and you disregard it 'out of principle', you look the fool.
People object to Ayn Rand quotes because they believe her politics to be naive, or her fiction to be heavy-handed. I cannot speak to either of those things one way or the other.
Even giving these things, these are of course no reason to never quote her. Hell, there is a time and a place for quoting even Himmler.
I believe that many left-leaning political types strongly dislike and attempt to discredit Ayn Rand because they vehemently disagree with her political philosophy. A common criticism is that her philosophy sounds good when you are a child, but when you grow up you realize it doesn't work in the real world.
For myself, I'm a 40 year old that leans Libertarian so I tend to agree with some of her political philosophy. I even tried reading Atlas Shrugged but it was so boring I put it down after about 100 pages.
They make some people's head 'splode, others generate kneejerk responses. For an otherwise obscure writer, that that she is so well known to have detractors everywhere is itself telling, but you'd have to judge for yourself what it is telling about.
It's essentially the equivalent of quoting Karl Marx. They are both so blinded by adherence to a since-discredited world view that their positions are laughable at best and at worse provide excuses for destructive behavior. Those who quote either typically haven't bothered to branch out beyond a simplistic, falsifiable perspective. Such an approach supports the smug self-satisfaction of dogmatic certainty over actually being correct.
Or, more succinctly, "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
One is that her ideas were not particularly original, and not particularly well-expressed. Self-centered philosophies are far from new, and actually are pretty well-trod ground, but her work does little to address already-existing critiques and, as literature, is not particularly good (her characters tend to be one-dimensional, plots lack good development/tension/resolution, etc.).
Another is that she has become a frankly cult-like figure, with people approaching her work the wrong way around: rather than "this statement is correct, and Ayn Rand said it", too often there is a seeming attitude of "this statement is correct because Ayn Rand said it". The Objectivist movement (people who follow her work and philosophy) is particularly infamous for this, having an established history of venerating her and doing some rather extreme turns when she was alive and particular people from her circle fell out of her favor.
Finally, most of her work is easy to critique with only very basic reasoning/argumentative skills, despite presenting itself as a solid, rationally-justified framework. More realistically, Rand's philosophy consists of appeals to emotional responses, based on the idea of self-evaluation of one's own greatness and the notion that this greatness exists more or less in a vacuum (one of the famous examples is "going Galt", wherein all of the great people who produce value simply retreat and form their own separate society, to spite the "parasites" who "leeched" off their work).
To continue with the fiction theme, one of Heinlein's stories ("The Roads Must Roll", 1940) anticipated and harshly criticized the type of philosophy Rand ended up promoting. One of the asides there is to a philosophy of "Functionalism"; the founder of the philosophy advocates evaluating people -- and giving them power and prestige -- based on what "function" they can perform, and how valuable it is to society.
The result is large numbers of people who do not really make any unusually-significant contributions, but who all come to the conclusion that whatever they do is the one truly indispensable thing, and if they stopped doing it the whole society would fall apart, so they should be given more power or prestige over others in recognition. As Heinlein puts it, "With so many different functions actually indispensible, such self-persuasion was easy." Heinlein also offers a description of the founder of "Functionalism" which critiques the philosophy and in many ways critiques Rand's later work as well, when he says:
The complete interdependence of modern economic life seems to have escaped him entirely.
Why is HN so obsessed with Ayn Rand? It's a serious question that I've been meaning to ask for some time. I never heard about her before joining Hacker News, and since then it's been at least once a week. Is this a Silicon Valley thing?
Thanks for answering that. However, I've been exposed to US culture since early adulthood and somehow she or her work didn't come up until I joined HN. It seems to me her influence is especially strong here, but that could of course be anecdotal.
From an outsider's perspective it just seems... odd.
I think it's more coincidence than trend. She's definitely discussed more in the US than the rest of the world, but not specifically more on HN. People tend to agree or disagree with her strongly, so when it comes up once it generally doesn't die until everybody who feels obligated to criticize or defend her have made their points.
It is an American/Internet thing in general. Wherever American politics pops up online you will eventually see someone reference her and get piled on, or see someone accuse the other of being "Ayn Randian" or whatever.
If you enjoy this sort of thing, check out reddit sometime.
I don't agree with the answers you're getting. The US is a subset of the world. People into computers in the US is a subset of the US population, which is also grouped differently than in Europe. HN is in turn a subset of those people.
The US is more right-wing than Europe. People into computers in the US are fairly affluent, probably even more so compared to Europe. HN readers are more business focused and less hacker/community focused than other people into computers.
Generalizations of course, but I would bet few of the people answering you have been to CCC for instance.
I think it's also a libertarian type of view that appeals to technocrats and nerds. The focus on logic, individualism and meritocracy is something that appeals to a lot of the more nerdy among us.
I personally find Ayn Rand too simplistic and from a literary point of view hardly readable but I think she's definitely an important part of American culture but I think at this point she's not as widely read as 20 or 30 years ago.
But it still struck me as funny how many of us HN's (self included) jumped to the defense of Weebly for "optimizing revenue" in the "When a Startup Sends a Passive-Aggressive Email Every Day " story that was trending earlier today (1)
If Florida's red-light system was my start-up I'd be pretty damned pleased with myself for figuring out how to drive more revenue with "no cost".
Yellow lights don't cause more traffic accidents... shorter yellow lights do. How do you think that "Cross streets don't turn green until the yellow is gone" indicates that should not be the case?
Was anyone else pleasantly surprised to find that this is a well-researched, plainly-told article -- the kind you rarely expect from local news? This should be an example on how to investigate and report impactful news.
I think short yellows are dangerous, especially with loaded vehicles. US DOT should set standards for minimum yellow light times. Here is one such proposal: http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/
I meant actual times, the MUTCD only says you must use "engineering practices" in determining the interval. The ITE equation was included in my link -- however it optimizes for reduced red-light violations, so it's no wonder it's not used in these cases.
Huh, it's interesting that there's actually an engineering standard for yellow light times that local governments don't seem to acknowledge. I've always been annoyed at the dangerously short yellow lights around here (Denver), compared to the rest of the country. (I think they were short even before we had red light cameras.) When I'm traveling in other states, I often find myself automatically hitting the brakes when I see yellow, only to sit at the yellow light for a few seconds. :/
The actual video from these camera should not be admitted as they violate the rules of evidence. Out of 1,000 cases this attorney from the Ticket Clinic claims to have won all 1,000 on this argument alone. I have yet to take one to court, but I imagine I will, as an FL attorney not a violator.
So below the federal recommendation and worse, not uniformly but more often on lights with cameras leading to non standard light behaviour. Because we really want unpredictable behaviour from our traffic system... that can only lead to safer roads... like variable length steps on a stair case.
These people should be charged with public endangerment.
edit: Also as someone pointed out, less warning to pedestrians to clear the cross walk and less time to do so. Very safety conscious.
I can't wait for self-driving cars to become commonplace. Wonder how much of a hit these departments that rely so much on red light camera and speeding tickets will take.
It's not only that. A good buddy of mine is a criminal defence lawyer. He says that a goodly portion of his drug-related cases begin with traffic stops. By goodly portion, I mean 50+%.
We've talked about it at length. There would be major changes in law enforcement practices if automated cars obviated trivial traffic law enforcement stops.
I know this has been done in Sacramento for years. Yellow Lights at large higher speed (40mph) intersections (like Fair Oaks and Howe) have the yellow light set at the CalTrans minimum safe approach speed, which is often 25 mph. This is on a double lane left turn with traffic at or above the posted speed limit.
Good luck fighting that ticket, well within the California State law.
Too bad they don't have to set the yellow light timing consistantly. That probally wouldn't give you the 2x increase in citations.
I find the news article rather sensationalist, because the reductions on the yellow light timing are now based off the limit rather than the greater of the limit or average speed. While this does increase the number of ticketed incidents it
It seems reasonable to ticket those who would be impacted by this, for if the forumla is correct it should just impact speeders.
I agree with the sentiment shared by others that the all stop time should stay the same to protect drivers from the speeders.
I wonder how it would be if we eliminated yellow lights altogether and instead had a countdown on the green light. At the very least it might save gas, as you could see that the green light ahead will turn red long before you could hope to hit the intersection, so you could coast in. Of course, you'd need to have an adequate "all-red" time for it to not be dangerous.
I despise these traffic cameras. They are popping up everywhere in the DFW area. So many people I know get rolling right on red tickets... it's absolute BS. It has nothing to do with safety and everything about money. There are so many instances where you can check if it's safe to make a right without having to make your wheels completely stop. I can't imagine many accidents being caused by a vehicle moving <2mph while making sure they were clear as opposed to coming to a complete stop. These photo enforced lights make me nervous as all hell, as I approach, first sign of yellow and I find myself slamming on the brakes.
The same thing happened in New Jersey, but the state took the matters in hand, and effectively suspended the cameras last summer (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/is_your_local_red_l...). I was flashed in Newark, after a very short yellow light on a 55mph road where normally yellow lights are long enough so that you do not have to dangerously slam the brakes. According to another article I read, it is supposed to be 4 seconds for 40mph roads. I was flashed after what looked like at most 2 seconds of yellow light.
I never received anything, and I found out about the yellow light abuses.
I am a canadian and I've driven in cities like Vancouver and Calgary. The yellow lights in Calgary hold so much longer (maybe even double the time?). I found it much more comfortable to drive there than in Vancouver.
That said, I've been thinking for quite some time now that it might be best to just add a count-down number on the lights to show you how many seconds are left until the green light turns yellow. If you are going to beat the light, might as well speed up a bit from afar than by a lot near the intersection.
This is a perfect example of mismatched incentives.
When a deterrent is working, you get very few violations. Rewarding the detection of violations is incentivizing exactly the wrong thing. You're rewarding for making things worse!
I don't know what incentives would work, in the case of red light cameras.
- Accuracy on unmarked test cars going through the intersection? (testing is expensive)
- Clamping the income from fines below some threshold? (the threshold might be manipulated)
- Rewarding low accident rates relative to other intersections? (probably too unstable)
All fines from traffic incidents go into a separate piggy bank that's refunded equally to taxpayers at the end of the year and can't be drawn on for departmental or government funds.
The problem with red light cameras is that they encourage blind obedience to rigid traffic laws, and not driving safely as dictated by the road conditions. There are plenty of legal situations where a driver might "run" a red without having done anything "illegal" or dangerous, such as getting caught in the middle of an intersection. I'm in favor of ripping them all down, as their only real function is to suck money out of the taxpayers pockets.
If you think this is a way to collect money, try driving in the Netherlands. Our normal speedlimit is 130 km/h, but we have limits of 100 km/h on wide and empty 5 lane highways in the middle of nowhere enforced by average-speedcameras (so 100% chance of getting caught even if speeding by as little as 2 mph)
Oh and the fine of 10 mph (16km/h) over the limit is 174 USD... but really, this is about safety, not about the money :X
Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
If they increased the "all-red" time to match, then good for Florida. They've increased their revenues, their roads are safer, and those who are running yellows are getting what they deserve. Running yellows is illegal and far too common.
If they didn't increase the all-red time they are making the roads more dangerous. People get accustomed to the length of the yellow & all-red time. But if the total doesn't change, only the relative proportions it shouldn't have an impact on safety.
Your first link is a red herring. We are trying to increase safety, not reduce red light violations.
Your other two links make a common mistake in traffic safety debates by assuming that an increase in accident rates is a decrease in safety. Look at the types of accidents that are increased or reduced by red light cameras and you'll see that they generally do make intersections safer by reducing high speed, side impact collisions. This comes at the cost of increased low speed collisions, namely people running into someone's bumper as they slam on their brakes to avoid the red light ticket which is a psychological (risk aversion) problem, not a problem with the technology itself.
Also, is shortening yellows actually making the roads safer or is it just a way to increase revenues? Seems like one likely cause of shorter yellow lights is that more people make harder stops at intersections, result in more rear-end collisions.
In many places, such as where I grew up in Ohio, the language regarding yellow lights is to "clear the intersection", and that if you are able to stop, you must not enter an intersection when presented with a yellow light. In other words, treat it like a red light, unless you absolutely cannot stop.
Of course in practice most folks will go for it if they think they can clear the intersection in time. Some may even accelerate, and having excessively long yellow lights may encourage that behavior even more, despite it being illegal.
>Some may even accelerate, and having excessively long yellow lights may encourage that behavior even more, despite it being illegal.
If you are in doubt about whether you can safely stop when the light turns yellow (and you have very little time to make that judgment), it's much safer to err on the side of running it.
The longer the yellow light is, the more likely you are to be able to correctly judge whether you can stop on time. The shorter yellow lights are in your area, the more likely you are to to slam on the brakes to avoid running the red light. Slamming on the brakes is far more dangerous than running a freshly changed red light, to say nothing of running a yellow.
I live somewhere with long yellows and it does encourage people to run the lights. It's a problem, but we are also a very bike-friendly city and long yellows give cyclists time to clear the intersection. Also, there is a delay after the red before the next right-of-way gets their green and this seems to prevent accidents (because the late-yellow/red light runners are clear before the next green).
Nevertheless, we do have some red light cameras here. One day I was stuck at an intersection with a camera, and I was waiting to turn left. I had a red left turn signal, and it suddenly stopped cycling. It was rush hour, and after three cycles with no green arrow, I called the non-emergency dispatch and told them the problem and asked the cop what I should do. She told me to take the safest course of action I thought I could. I told her that was running the red light during a break from oncoming traffic, but that I would be given a ticket for this. She said she couldn't invite me to break the law, but just do the safest thing. The legal move would have been to change lanes to the right and go straight through the intersection on a green, but this was also the most dangerous choice because of the heavy traffic flow. Thankfully the light cycle following my conversation with the cop, I got my green arrow, but it sucked to feel so helpless--knowing the safest and correct action (running the red once oncoming traffic allowed it) and knowing I would be penalized for it.
There is a portion of time where all of the lights at the intersection are red. The person you are responding to notes that as long as this portion of time is increased such that the total time that the intersection has for someone to clear it (i.e. - time that the light is yellow plus time that the lights are all red) stays the same then safety inside the intersection should not be impacted.
This says nothing about safety leading up to the intersection (e.g. - people slamming on their brakes).
I am worried about the case where the driver, distracted, looks away from the intersection for a second. Returning their gaze to the light, they see it red. They never observed it yellow, and thus they have no idea how long it has been red and whether or not it is safe to run the light. Perhaps this is why we have yellow to begin with--as an redundant means of clocking the time until the opposing light turns green.
If the "all-red" time is increased to compensate, then the time before someone else goes does not decrease. However, if they are just decreasing the yellow time, and keeping the all-red the same(making the total time from yellow to opposite direction green shorter) then I agree that safety has been lowered to increase profits, and this would be super un-ethical.
Even if you increase the all-red time, shorter yellows are still more dangerous. For example if you drop the yellow time too low for the legal speed limit of the road then you will create a situation where people have to start emergency braking in order to avoid running the red. This situation is unsafe for obvious reasons.
As someone pointed out it doesn't if the total red+yellow time is still the same (i.e. red time is replaced with yellow).
The counter-argument is well it increases chance of rear end collision when people stop suddenly. And that is true.
The counter-argument to the above is well they should be driving with enough assured distance between vehicles and below the speed limit.
To "maximize" revenue they could be making the legally correct assumption that everyone is keeping a good enough distance and driving below the speed limit, and they'd actually have a legally defensible position as much as I hate to admit it.
(It is also hard to argue informally that they don't know what they are doing, they know perfectly well, as others pointed out, if this was a start up maximizing revenue we should be cheering, right, right...?)
Just so I understand, you are under the impression that 0 seconds is the appropriate time required to stop, which would obviously be the case if your car was moving legally at the speed limit at the edge of the road when the green light immediately changed to a red light.
No, you're missing his point. He's talking about safety, not avoiding fines. If lights go straight from green to red, but then wait 60 seconds before any other traffic goes from red to green, then it won't cause any safety issues, because even if a handful of cars can't stop in time when it goes red, there won't be any other traffic around. Off course it could cause problems with cars going in the same direction stopping too quickly, but the assumption is that cars won't just slam on their breaks as soon as they see the red light (and let's not forget this is also the hypothetical in which there is no orange light).
This line of discussion is unrelated to whether or not they should be trying to maximise fines.
Yellow means "stop if safe". Red means "stop", but when driving "if safe" is always implied. I've driven through red lights to let emergency vehicles through, and a judge would likely throw out a ticket given for such a reason.
Yellow lights increase safety by avoiding the "slam on the brakes" effect you've described. They've replaced this with a very common "floor the accelarator" reaction which also decreases safety. How do you get one without the other? Red light cameras combined with a short yellow seem the best approach to me.
>Yellow lights increase safety by avoiding the "slam on the brakes" effect you've described. They've replaced this with a very common "floor the accelarator" reaction which also decreases safety.
In a typical car, flooring the gas pedal is conservatively going to be about 9ft/s² in the same direction as you're already moving. Slamming on the brakes is going to accelerate you at about 15ft/s² in the opposite direction as you're already moving. The effects these two actions have on safety are not comparable
>Red light cameras combined with a short yellow seem the best approach to me.
Except that that approach has been conclusively demonstrated to increase both accidents and fatalities, while lengthening yellow lights has been shown to reduce both accidents and fatalities.
actually, i wonder if there wouldn't be fewer rear end collisions if there were no yellow lights. people might be more cautious when approaching an intersection and less likely to ride someone's ass.
For those of you who didn't bother reading the article, which I assume will be all of you since this topic normally drags up the least-able critical thinkers on this site, I'll summarize it for you: the Florida DOT lowered yellow duration to a level appropriate for the speed limit on the road. The duration might not be long enough for speeding cars to stop. So in addition to being colossal asshats, people who are speeding might also be getting more tickets from red light cameras.
And in conclusion, drivers are the most self-entitled scofflaws in the world.
The yellow light means "Clear the intersection," not "Slow down." The purpose is to give time to people crossing the sidewalks to finish walking over to the other side. Shortening them is a safety hazard for pedestrians like me who don't own a vehicle.
I don't live in Florida, but this is shameful and disgusting.