Red Light Cameras: Acceptable Or Not?
Discussion
Just wondering what people think about this. It seems to me that we have three main objections to pratnership-run speed cameras: speeding in itself is often safe/irrelevant, there is no discretion, and enforcement is being driven by money rather than safety.
With RLCs, we still have the problem of them being used by the scumraships to balance the books, and there is still no discretion, but in contrast to speeding, jumping lights is generally viewed here as something that is unsafe, unnecessary and a genuine, well-documented, obvious cause of some quite horrific accidents.
Does that make RLCs OK or not? I suppose you could ask the same question about things like the yellow box junction cameras that have been popping up. In each case, you might think initially that they were a good idea, but in practice I have heard tales of people being done for jumping lights to let ambulances through, and similar things about box junction cameras. This seems to me to be down to their being used to make money. I think if enforcement was done without a view to cash generation then discretion and a reasonable attitude would naturally follow.
Therefore while I'm not currently too happy seeing these cameras around, I'd probably be in favour of them if the bodies overseeing them were not running them as a business. I still wouldn't want speed cameras though, and I wouldn't want it going any further than it has now, because I certainly wouldn't want cameras everywhere which could do you for anything.
Really I have a natural aversion to cameras full stop and would prefer trafpol in every case, but since we're living in the real world and offences have to be detected somehow, the above is my take on the matter. What's yours?
With RLCs, we still have the problem of them being used by the scumraships to balance the books, and there is still no discretion, but in contrast to speeding, jumping lights is generally viewed here as something that is unsafe, unnecessary and a genuine, well-documented, obvious cause of some quite horrific accidents.
Does that make RLCs OK or not? I suppose you could ask the same question about things like the yellow box junction cameras that have been popping up. In each case, you might think initially that they were a good idea, but in practice I have heard tales of people being done for jumping lights to let ambulances through, and similar things about box junction cameras. This seems to me to be down to their being used to make money. I think if enforcement was done without a view to cash generation then discretion and a reasonable attitude would naturally follow.
Therefore while I'm not currently too happy seeing these cameras around, I'd probably be in favour of them if the bodies overseeing them were not running them as a business. I still wouldn't want speed cameras though, and I wouldn't want it going any further than it has now, because I certainly wouldn't want cameras everywhere which could do you for anything.
Really I have a natural aversion to cameras full stop and would prefer trafpol in every case, but since we're living in the real world and offences have to be detected somehow, the above is my take on the matter. What's yours?
The two big causes of red light crashes are totally unaffected by the cameras:
- Saw the red in the middle of its phase and didn't care. Applies to those attempting to outrun the cops and so on. A RLC won't stop them. They'll still have their big crashes.
- Never saw the lights. Inattentive drivers, colour blind drivers and so on drive through red lights because they never saw the lights. A RLC won't stop them. They'll still have their big crashes.
Next on the list is the 'amber gambler' type. Mostly they don't crash because the other direction hasn't started moving. If it's a problem at a particular set of lights, an extended all-red phase solves the problem. RLCs might help, but they weren't the best solution.
Then there's the '4am taxi driver type' who want to treat a red light as a give way. The cameras can stop them, but they weren't dangerous in general anyway. Why bother with a RLC for these people?
Then there are the rear end shunts that RLCs are bound to cause. People are much more likely to slam on if they see an RLC. Various reports show an increase in rear end crashes due to RLCs.
All in all? A waste of time at best. At worst a casue of crashes and a missed opportunity to avoid crashes.
- Saw the red in the middle of its phase and didn't care. Applies to those attempting to outrun the cops and so on. A RLC won't stop them. They'll still have their big crashes.
- Never saw the lights. Inattentive drivers, colour blind drivers and so on drive through red lights because they never saw the lights. A RLC won't stop them. They'll still have their big crashes.
Next on the list is the 'amber gambler' type. Mostly they don't crash because the other direction hasn't started moving. If it's a problem at a particular set of lights, an extended all-red phase solves the problem. RLCs might help, but they weren't the best solution.
Then there's the '4am taxi driver type' who want to treat a red light as a give way. The cameras can stop them, but they weren't dangerous in general anyway. Why bother with a RLC for these people?
Then there are the rear end shunts that RLCs are bound to cause. People are much more likely to slam on if they see an RLC. Various reports show an increase in rear end crashes due to RLCs.
All in all? A waste of time at best. At worst a casue of crashes and a missed opportunity to avoid crashes.
safespeed said:
Next on the list is the 'amber gambler' type. Mostly they don't crash because the other direction hasn't started moving. If it's a problem at a particular set of lights, an extended all-red phase solves the problem. RLCs might help, but they weren't the best solution.
Don't agree with this bit of your post. If you increase the all-red then drivers who know the junction (and usually that means more than half of them unless it's a tourist route) soon realise that there is extra time before other stuff starts to move. That makes them more likely to jump the red light after it changes because they "know it's safe". Because they do that, you increase the red time again, and they realise and another couple squeeze through... how far do you go?
The very first road accident I was in (jees that sounds really bad... as if there were hundreds) I was in the back of a mini, following a taxi up to a set of light which had a huge clearance time - we went that way every day and knew that everybody who knew those signals just kind of floated through. This taxi didn't - he stuck on the anchors and stopped and my pal ploughed into the back of him. Wrote off the mini and slightly dented the taxi's boot. OK not vey clever but still...
[theorymodeon]
And in any case, the optimum operation of traffic signals depends very highly on "lost time" - ie basically the time that traffic isn't moving.
Say the signals are busy so there are no gaps in traffic. In "saturated" conditions, traffic crosses a single lane stop line about 2 seconds apart.
Say the cycle time is 60 seconds, so there are 60 cycles in an hour (3600/60).
If you add 2 seconds to the red time, then that's 2 seconds less green time in each cycle - ie one less vehicle through in each cycle.
And one less in the next cycle... and the next... so after an hour (60 cycles), you could have a queue of 60 more vehicles than you had when you started. And all because you pandered to selfish gits who are too important to think that red lights apply to them.
Ah you say - why not just add the 2 seconds onto the whole cycle time so that you don't lose any green time? Well now you have a cycle time of 62 seconds, and you only get 58 of those in an hour. So although you get the same amount of traffic through in each cycle, you lose 2 cycles - 120 seconds worth of traffic - so you still have 50 or 60 more vehicles queued at that junction after an hour, than you would have had before.
So in either case a "safety improvement" leads to a queue... some authorities would (and do) take that course of action as the "PC" thing to do. But it's not, it's bloody lazy design.
In my view (and it's becoming a minority view because I'm old-school) "lost time" should be minimised, without compromising safety, and drivers should know that red means red, ie stop now, not when you feel like it. Red light cameras help where this is a problem, and help to keep this balance between safety and junction operation so I have no problem with them from that point of view.
I am still a bit concerned about the "moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle" thing though.
I think red light cameras are a good thing. What part of red light don't they think applies to them?
I would prefer an extra second or two on the amber stage myself, to allow a car to go through if they were too close to stop (which is what I see when there are RLC, the emergency stop thing)..
As someone who was nearly killed by a guy running a red light in a rather large 4*4 I guess I am slightly biased though.
BUT, as long as any such camera was operated with a degree of flexibility rather than the moron ticket issue system we have now..
I would prefer an extra second or two on the amber stage myself, to allow a car to go through if they were too close to stop (which is what I see when there are RLC, the emergency stop thing)..
As someone who was nearly killed by a guy running a red light in a rather large 4*4 I guess I am slightly biased though.
BUT, as long as any such camera was operated with a degree of flexibility rather than the moron ticket issue system we have now..
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
james_j said:
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
I want the person who you've said doesn't care & goes through regardless identified & prosecuted regardless if they caused a collision on that occasion. Their driving behaviour is inherently dangerous & they need dealing with so that it may be possible to prevent them continuing in future doing it where someone will get killed.
Just imagine you start to move off at green, said maniac comes through on red, you manage to avoid him, he doesn't care anyway & flicks you a hand gesture to your horn note.
If a Police officer witnessed it & then said, yeah but he didn't hit you how would you view that ?
The camera will have the evidence to do something, just like I'd expect any Police officer onserving someone taking red lights like that to do something.
Every driver on approach to a green light should be expecting them to turn towards red & planning to stop (including what they have behind them in that plan). The amber (which means stop) should come as no surprise. Anything else is poor driving.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:27
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
I want the person who you've said doesn't care & goes through regardless identified & prosecuted regardless if they caused a collision on that occasion. Their driving behaviour is inherently dangerous & they need dealing with so that it may be possible to prevent them continuing in future doing it where someone will get killed.
Just imagine you start to move off at green, said maniac comes through on red, you manage to avoid him, he doesn't care anyway & flicks you a hand gesture to your horn note.
If a Police officer witnessed it & then said, yeah but he didn't hit you how would you view that ?
The camera will have the evidence to do something.
Of course the camera will have "evidence". It won't have been a deterrent to that type of person though, the act will have been committed. ...but it's quite likely to have evidence of a car registered to nobody in particular if the car driver doesn't stop.
Edited by james_j on Saturday 12th August 09:27
Edited by james_j on Saturday 12th August 09:30
james_j said:
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
I want the person who you've said doesn't care & goes through regardless identified & prosecuted regardless if they caused a collision on that occasion. Their driving behaviour is inherently dangerous & they need dealing with so that it may be possible to prevent them continuing in future doing it where someone will get killed.
Just imagine you start to move off at green, said maniac comes through on red, you manage to avoid him, he doesn't care anyway & flicks you a hand gesture to your horn note.
If a Police officer witnessed it & then said, yeah but he didn't hit you how would you view that ?
The camera will have the evidence to do something.
Of course the camera will have "evidence". It won't have been a deterrent to that type of person though, the act will have been comitted. ...but it's quite likely to have evidence of a car registered to nobody in particular.
You are assuming every arrogant agressive driver out there drives an unregistered car. Believe me that isn't so.
Means to deal with those driving unregistered vehciles are also being introduced.
The camera use is two fold.
1)Deter
2)Prosecute those who aren't deterred
it isn't just a detterent.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:32
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
I want the person who you've said doesn't care & goes through regardless identified & prosecuted regardless if they caused a collision on that occasion. Their driving behaviour is inherently dangerous & they need dealing with so that it may be possible to prevent them continuing in future doing it where someone will get killed.
Just imagine you start to move off at green, said maniac comes through on red, you manage to avoid him, he doesn't care anyway & flicks you a hand gesture to your horn note.
If a Police officer witnessed it & then said, yeah but he didn't hit you how would you view that ?
The camera will have the evidence to do something.
Of course the camera will have "evidence". It won't have been a deterrent to that type of person though, the act will have been comitted. ...but it's quite likely to have evidence of a car registered to nobody in particular.
You are assuming every arrogant agressive driver out there drives an unregistered car. Believe me that isn't so.
Means to deal with those driving unregistered vehciles are also being introduced.
The camera use is two fold.
1)Deter
2)Prosecute those who aren't deterred
it isn't just a detterent.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:32
I'm saying a high proportion of drivers who don't care about being caught by anything are more likely to be unregistered. The RLC is not an effective deterrent to them and to others it's a dangerous distraction and worry.
There have been studies which have shown RLCs to increase accident occurrence. Now, doesn't that seem stupid?
This government's obsession with monitoring every aspect of our lives, just in case a very tiny minority of scrotes may or may not be caught is becoming too much. An lowlife will have a crash at a red light irrespective of whether or not a RLC is there; still, I suppose the vistims familiers will have a momento of the occasion.
In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of drivers daily will become ditherly and distracted when crossing traffic lights when they know a camera is waiting to take their picture...
This government's obsession with monitoring every aspect of our lives, just in case a very tiny minority of scrotes may or may not be caught is becoming too much. An lowlife will have a crash at a red light irrespective of whether or not a RLC is there; still, I suppose the vistims familiers will have a momento of the occasion.
In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of drivers daily will become ditherly and distracted when crossing traffic lights when they know a camera is waiting to take their picture...
james_j said:
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
I want the person who you've said doesn't care & goes through regardless identified & prosecuted regardless if they caused a collision on that occasion. Their driving behaviour is inherently dangerous & they need dealing with so that it may be possible to prevent them continuing in future doing it where someone will get killed.
Just imagine you start to move off at green, said maniac comes through on red, you manage to avoid him, he doesn't care anyway & flicks you a hand gesture to your horn note.
If a Police officer witnessed it & then said, yeah but he didn't hit you how would you view that ?
The camera will have the evidence to do something.
Of course the camera will have "evidence". It won't have been a deterrent to that type of person though, the act will have been comitted. ...but it's quite likely to have evidence of a car registered to nobody in particular.
You are assuming every arrogant agressive driver out there drives an unregistered car. Believe me that isn't so.
Means to deal with those driving unregistered vehciles are also being introduced.
The camera use is two fold.
1)Deter
2)Prosecute those who aren't deterred
it isn't just a detterent.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:32
I'm saying a high proportion of drivers who don't care about being caught by anything are more likely to be unregistered. The RLC is not an effective deterrent to them and to others it's a dangerous distraction and worry.
Do you worry about them in your driving ?
How many people have expressed this worry about them to you for their driving ?
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:53
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
Agree Safespeed. When one actually applies thought to the types of driver who would actually run a red light when the other direction is on green, you will find that the RLC would not be of concern to them. To everyone else they are a dangerous distraction. Hey, just like speed cameras and speed traps in general then.
I want the person who you've said doesn't care & goes through regardless identified & prosecuted regardless if they caused a collision on that occasion. Their driving behaviour is inherently dangerous & they need dealing with so that it may be possible to prevent them continuing in future doing it where someone will get killed.
Just imagine you start to move off at green, said maniac comes through on red, you manage to avoid him, he doesn't care anyway & flicks you a hand gesture to your horn note.
If a Police officer witnessed it & then said, yeah but he didn't hit you how would you view that ?
The camera will have the evidence to do something.
Of course the camera will have "evidence". It won't have been a deterrent to that type of person though, the act will have been comitted. ...but it's quite likely to have evidence of a car registered to nobody in particular.
You are assuming every arrogant agressive driver out there drives an unregistered car. Believe me that isn't so.
Means to deal with those driving unregistered vehciles are also being introduced.
The camera use is two fold.
1)Deter
2)Prosecute those who aren't deterred
it isn't just a detterent.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 09:32
I'm saying a high proportion of drivers who don't care about being caught by anything are more likely to be unregistered. The RLC is not an effective deterrent to them and to others it's a dangerous distraction and worry.
Do they worry you ?
Yes, as I think the lights may be changing, my focus (in my mind, not necessarily my eyes) is transferred to "...hell, am I going to get across in time, do I brake and risk being shunted by the driver behind who thinks he should be able to get across in time, or do I just go for it..." I just don't need it as a driver, there are cars all around me at many traffic junctions, doing all the "unexpected" things drivers do every day - I don't need a bloody camera watching over me, like most drivers (99 plus percent surely), I'm quite aware that when the lights turn red, a few seconds later the other lights turn green.
You don't have to ask other drivers what they think of RLCs, their driving style changes in the vicinity quite clearly - not for the better.
Edited by james_j on Saturday 12th August 10:00
tvrgit said:
safespeed said:
Next on the list is the 'amber gambler' type. Mostly they don't crash because the other direction hasn't started moving. If it's a problem at a particular set of lights, an extended all-red phase solves the problem. RLCs might help, but they weren't the best solution.
Don't agree with this bit of your post. If you increase the all-red then drivers who know the junction (and usually that means more than half of them unless it's a tourist route) soon realise that there is extra time before other stuff starts to move.
I agree that RLC MAY reduce 'amber gambler' collisions. And you're right to highlight it as the weakest part of the argument. I've held off from publishing the information on a Safe Speed web page because I don't really have the information to make a complete case.
However, it is known that an extended red phase is effective in reducing amber gambler collisions, and it is known that RLCs increase shunts.
The other weak part of the argument is that regular 'didn't see the lights' types MIGHT get banned or get a 'wake up call' as the result of offences recorded by RLCs.
When crashes are caused by people deliberately driving through reds at speed in stolen cars these stats should NEVER be used to justify RLCs - but they are.
All in all, I doubt that RLCs deliver overall benefit.
james_j said:
Yes, as I think the lights may be changing, my focus (in my mind, not necessarily my eyes) is transferred to "...hell, am I going to get across in time, do I brake and risk being shunted by the driver behind who thinks he should be able to get across in time, or do I just go for it..." I just don't need it as a driver, there are cars all around me at many traffic junctions, doing all the "unexpected" things drivers do every day - I don't need a bloody camera watching over me, like most drivers (99 plus percent surely), I'm quite aware that when the lights turn red, a few seconds later the other lights turn green.
You don't have to ask other drivers what they think of RLCs, their driving style changes in the vicinity quite clearly - not for the better.
Then IMHO you need to be planning more that they will start to turn on your approach & manipulating your surroundings so that you can stop safely if & when they do. Rather than thinking about it late & reacting with a split second decision to the change of "do I stop OR do I go ?" That decision should have been made when they were still on green. Until the point of no return you should plan on stopping & be manipulating your surroundings for that eventuality, only commiting at the point of no return whilst they are still green. The camera is of no consequence to you then.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 11:44
vonhosen said:
[...] Rather than thinking about it late & reacting with a split second decision to the change of "do I stop OR do I go ?" That decision should have been made when they were still on green. Until the point of no return you should plan on stopping & be manipulating your surroundings for that eventuality, only commiting at the point of no return whilst they are still green. The camera is of no consequence to you then.
Good advice! It is also worth mentioning that with our fixed 3 second amber the maximum safe approach speed to a light that might change to red is only a little over 40mph.
This assumes:
- we wish to brake firmly (0.45g), but not carry out an emergency stop for a changing light
- if the lights do change we will begin braking in 0.75 seconds
- that the lights change at the worst possible moment
Edited by safespeed on Saturday 12th August 12:02
safespeed said:
Good advice! It is also worth mentioning that with our fixed 3 second amber the maximum safe approach speed to a light that might change to red is only a little over 40mph.
This assumes:
- we wish to brake firmly (0.45g), but not carry out an emergency stop for a changing light
- if the lights do change we will begin braking in 0.75 seconds
- that the lights change at the worst possible moment
I get that .45g acceleration for 2.25s gives 44mph.
Interestingly (or not) if you take 1.5s reaction time (SD's estimate), rather than the HC 0.75s, then the answer is 30mph.
http://tinyurl.com/f5fww <-- google result
7db said:
I get that .45g acceleration for 2.25s gives 44mph.
Yes. I do too. Given that '0.45g' constant decelleration is a pretty loose approximation of real world behaviour I think 'a bit over 40mph' is quite a good call. I've quoted 44mph before.
7db said:
Interestingly (or not) if you take 1.5s reaction time (SD's estimate), rather than the HC 0.75s, then the answer is 30mph.
Estimates in that range allow some sophisticated hazard recognition time or some inattention time, neither of which 'should' be needed when we're approaching a green light.
A different viewpoint:
RLCs most certainly increase congestion as people will stamp on the brake instead of using reasonable judgement and continuing through the junction, thereby reducing traffic flow - in exactly the same was as yellow box cameras have been proven to increase congestion!
I tend towards being against extended all-red phases because it will contribute to congestion (less green means less ‘go’ ). Drivers need to understand that amber means stop (if safe to).
However, I’m against the use of traffic lights in many instances (except pedestrian crossings); removal or disablement usually means that queues/waiting times dissipate.
edited cos my text was interpreted as smiley
RLCs most certainly increase congestion as people will stamp on the brake instead of using reasonable judgement and continuing through the junction, thereby reducing traffic flow - in exactly the same was as yellow box cameras have been proven to increase congestion!
I tend towards being against extended all-red phases because it will contribute to congestion (less green means less ‘go’ ). Drivers need to understand that amber means stop (if safe to).
However, I’m against the use of traffic lights in many instances (except pedestrian crossings); removal or disablement usually means that queues/waiting times dissipate.
edited cos my text was interpreted as smiley
Edited by smeggy on Saturday 12th August 15:37
vonhosen said:
james_j said:
Yes, as I think the lights may be changing, my focus (in my mind, not necessarily my eyes) is transferred to "...hell, am I going to get across in time, do I brake and risk being shunted by the driver behind who thinks he should be able to get across in time, or do I just go for it..." I just don't need it as a driver, there are cars all around me at many traffic junctions, doing all the "unexpected" things drivers do every day - I don't need a bloody camera watching over me, like most drivers (99 plus percent surely), I'm quite aware that when the lights turn red, a few seconds later the other lights turn green.
You don't have to ask other drivers what they think of RLCs, their driving style changes in the vicinity quite clearly - not for the better.
Then IMHO you need to be planning more that they will start to turn on your approach & manipulating your surroundings so that you can stop safely if & when they do. Rather than thinking about it late & reacting with a split second decision to the change of "do I stop OR do I go ?" That decision should have been made when they were still on green. Until the point of no return you should plan on stopping & be manipulating your surroundings for that eventuality, only commiting at the point of no return whilst they are still green. The camera is of no consequence to you then.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 12th August 11:44
I do plan, I don't "think about it late". You're making assumptions about what you "hope" is the mark of a bad driver who doesn't like to be caught out. Read my post more carefully.
Others around me probably don't plan (assuming others are idiots is the best way to survive after all.) I can't manipluate the driver behind. RLCs don't help.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff