Red-light cameras ordered capped in Minneapolis; declared unconstitutional

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Following laws blindly doesn't keep us free OR safe.

Anarchy Now!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Yes, yes I do.

I can understand the sentiment. But drawing a distinction between red light cameras and speeding cameras seems a bit odd to me.

[scaeagles]

How is that the fault of the camera? Wouldn't that be the fault of the driver behind you who wasn't paying attention or was tailing you too closely?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Sorry, but annecdotal evidence isn't enough to sway me. No more than me trying to sway you by claiming that a red light camera might have prevented my mother's near-fatal accident in which a nurse ran a redlight and broad-sided her on the driver's side. The fact that she walked away with nothing but seatbelt bruises and airbag burns was a miracle of luck as well as Buick engineering (how would you like to have been my father who drove up to that same intersection a few minutes later to see his wife's car a complete wreck in the middle of it?).

Such incidents prove nothing other than that the individuals at fault were driving unsafely.

I wonder, Moonliner, about the statistics you mention regarding increased accident rates...do they take into account injury/fatality rates? Accidents involving people running red lights are likely to be side-impact or head-on collisions, which generally carry significantly greater risk of major injury. I think a few extra bent rear bumpers is a fair trade, and in time, that anomally would likely correct itself as drivers learn to correctly approach yellow lights.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Sorry, but annecdotal evidence isn't enough to sway me. No more than me trying to sway you by claiming that a red light camera might have prevented my mother's near-fatal accident in which a nurse ran a redlight and broad-sided her on the driver's side. The fact that she walked away with nothing but seatbelt bruises and airbag burns was a miracle of luck as well as Buick engineering (how would you like to have been my father who drove up to that same intersection a few minutes later to see his wife's car a complete wreck in the middle of it?).

Such incidents prove nothing other than that the individuals at fault were driving unsafely.

I wonder, Moonliner, about the statistics you mention regarding increased accident rates...do they take into account injury/fatality rates? Accidents involving people running red lights are likely to be side-impact or head-on collisions, which generally carry significantly greater risk of major injury. I think a few extra bent rear bumpers is a fair trade, and in time, that anomally would likely correct itself as drivers learn to correctly approach yellow lights.

Hard data? Sure thing... Deaths went up as well.

Washington Post "Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent" (Be sure to read the ENTIRE article and not just the hogwash part put out by "city officials".)

Colorado Study

I could go on but you can google more for yourself if you would like...

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

... that anomally would likely correct itself as drivers learn to correctly approach yellow lights.

Anomally? I don't think you can count on that. How long have drivers had to "learn to correctly approach" stop lights? Over one hundred years and we still have daily accidents.

[Gemini Cricket]

If Boston had red-light cams, Massachusetts would be the richest state in the union.

[katiesue]

A couple of years ago there was a big bruhaha here about the cameras. Mostly steming fromt he fact that the outside contractor was profiting from them.

The Judge Ronald Styn in San Diego ruled that a public agency, not a private company, should be more in charge of the red light cameras. "The court sees no difference between a contingent fee to a private corporation and a contingent fee paid to an individual," Styn said.

This article is saying it cut down on accidents though -

The cameras have an upside, however. Statistics show that where cameras have gone up, crashes have gone down by 35 percent. "The judge said that there wasn't any problem with the system itself, with the cameras, how they work," said San Diego City Attorney Steven Hansen. "He said all that was fine. If there would have been city employees doing it, he would have let the evidence in."

http://www.calweb.com/kxtv10/news-st...RED-LIGHTS.htm

They took all of them out for a while but they're starting to come back. I don't have a problem with them but in one particular intersection near my house where they were installed, the intersection gets backed up as people slow to turn into a shopping center. You could enter the intersection on a green but get stuck and the the light would turn then flash you were caught.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by katiesue

You could enter the intersection on a green but get stuck and the the light would turn then flash you were caught.

And rightly so. You are never supopsed to enter an intersection unless you can get through it. If the light is green and the intersection is backed up, you're supposed to wait behind the line until you can get all the way through.

[katiesue]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And rightly so. You are never supopsed to enter an intersection unless you can get through it. If the light is green and the intersection is backed up, you're supposed to wait behind the line until you can get all the way through.

Problem is the light was a really short green with an even shorter yellow for a left hand turn. The way the shopping center entrance was located you couldn't tell it was going to stick you out there until it was too late. For me it was just easier to not make a left there during busy times then I just didn't have to worry about it.

[FEJ]

Originally Posted by katiesue

Problem is the light was a really short green with an even shorter yellow for a left hand turn. The way the shopping center entrance was located you couldn't tell it was going to stick you out there until it was too late. For me it was just easier to not make a left there during busy times then I just didn't have to worry about it.

California Vehicle Code
22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

b) A driver of a vehicle which is making a turn at an intersection who is facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal shall not enter the intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.


....

(f) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987.


I agree with this, and this is another reason why I agree with the cameras. There are a few intersections that it would take about 25 minutes to get through because the intersections were gridlocked due to people sitting in the intersections. Since they put the cameras up, they run so much smoother. At one time they were declared unconstitutional because the public was not given enough warning about the cameras. Either way I see it as a good deterrent. Just because it takes a bit longer is not a justifiable excuse in my books.
Katiesue-If the light is too short, then it is time to get involved locally and petition to have the timing changed at the city council, etc...