Short amber scam nets millions. In UK soon?

[Tafia]

Brunstrom has said he wants to see more red light cameras. Could this be why?

www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030824-110934-9216r.htm

Highways engineers know that it is simple to stop all but the maddest drivers going through red lights; just extend the amber to give time to either stop safely or clear the junction before the red.

So what did revenue seekers in Washington do? Shorten the amber and net millions of $$$$

Allegations were made some time ago that this was done to a set of lights in Cardiff for revenue purposes.

Rascals!

[dick dastardly]

Doesn't suprise me one little bit

BTW, Which lights in Cardiff? You live here?

[chief-0369]

IIRC amber timings in this country have a legal minimum. at the very least there are guidelines that should be followed.

if an accident occurs at the junction, the local authority could be deemed responsible if these guidelines were not followed.

though i doubt that would stop some councils

>> Edited by chief-0369 on Monday 25th August 21:15

[rich-uk]

Easy, amber = stand on the brakes, if anyone hit's you they were driving too close. I bet this would be sponsored by the insurance companies...

If you're driving 20mph you'd have time to stop

[Flat in Fifth]

It's already here.

Traffic lights, dual NSL ie limit 70.
Ok you'd have to be pushing it in the extreme to even want to do 70 there, but that is how it is.
Amber light phase 2.3 seconds
Red light camera with hair trigger.

Work out how long it takes you to stop from 70 mph at, say, 0.9g deceleration and compare the answer to 2.3 secs........

Then add the average reaction time on top of that and what do you get?

[MoJocvh]

Flat in Fifth said:

It's already here. Traffic lights, dual NSL ie limit 70. Ok you'd have to be pushing it in the extreme to even want to do 70 there, but that is how it is. Amber light phase 2.3 seconds Red light camera with hair trigger. Work out how long it takes you to stop from 70 mph at, say, 0.9g deceleration and compare the answer to 2.3 secs........ Then add the average reaction time on top of that and what do you get?

surely the limit would have to be reduced before the junction??

[streaky]

I've seen a few like that! - Streaky

[Flat in Fifth]

MoJocvh said:

Flat in Fifth said: It's already here. Traffic lights, dual NSL ie limit 70. Ok you'd have to be pushing it in the extreme to even want to do 70 there, but that is how it is. Amber light phase 2.3 seconds Red light camera with hair trigger. Work out how long it takes you to stop from 70 mph at, say, 0.9g deceleration and compare the answer to 2.3 secs........ Then add the average reaction time on top of that and what do you get? surely the limit would have to be reduced before the junction??

Nope, the road in both directions is an NSL dual.

From the "camera" direction its been NSL for almost a mile, though most of that is not dual, just hatched ghost islands if you know what I mean. So I reckon thats 60.

For the last few 100 metres prior to the lights it becomes dual, still NSL, hence 70.

Now due to other issues I don't approach this junction at 70, more like 45-50 ish absolute max depending on traffic.

Assuming my calculations are correct; then if you take the average drivers reaction time which I believe to be ~0.4 seconds.

Stopping at 0.9g, ie for most cars a full on anchors out, it takes you 0.4s plus 2.45s = 2.95 seconds to stop from just 50 mph. From 70 its a gnats under 4 seconds.

Yet the amber is only 2.3 seconds long.

I've seen these lights operate and the sensors below the tarmac are not far over the red line and they appear to flash as soon as the red is lit. I've seen several people flashed when onkly just out on distance/time . Of course no idea if a NIP ensued.

However the result is that those of us who know the lights drive very tentatively at this location. No bad thing I am sure you would agree.

But it does give the dilemma that there is a really difficult section approaching the lights. The shall I go, shall I stop dilemma area. Made worse by the numpty behind who does not realise just why you are driving at what some perceive to be a bit slow. Hence real increased risk of rear end shunts which is the USA experience.

It seems strange to me that the limit is set as it is, inappropriately high IMO, in conjunction with a RLC, when I can see roads which appear to have far fewer hazards set with much lower limits. Don't get me on where the talivan sits I think you can guess.

Hope I've explained clearly enough.

>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 26th August 12:10

[plotloss]

Hmmn ticket if you dont stop and a car up your arse if you do, marvellous.

I speak from experience, NO ONE even comes close to the brake pedal when the light goes amber.

I'm interested to know where these lights in Cardiff are.

My money is the ones on the A470 by Whitchurch golf club...

[blueyes]

plotloss said:

Hmmn ticket if you dont stop and a car up your arse if you do, marvellous.

I should think the latter option would be favoured by most MPs so don't expect the govt. to do anything

[bga]

RL camera in Tooting Broadway has made a world of difference. Most of the drivers are mad buggers but the threat of being flashed has given everyone a fighting chance of navigating the crossroads.
2.3 secs sounds a bit tight though.

[plotloss]

bga said:

RL camera in Tooting Broadway has made a world of difference. Most of the drivers are mad buggers but the threat of being flashed has given everyone a fighting chance of navigating the crossroads. 2.3 secs sounds a bit tight though.

Is that going North/South or East/West?

As long as it doesnt stop me doing my cheeky right hander u-turning around the island I'm happy

[victormeldrew]

I'm pretty sure that there has to be a minimum time on amber. I've heard of someone using insufficient time on amber as a successful defence, but can't recall where.

[bga]

plotloss said:

bga said: RL camera in Tooting Broadway has made a world of difference. Most of the drivers are mad buggers but the threat of being flashed has given everyone a fighting chance of navigating the crossroads. 2.3 secs sounds a bit tight though. Is that going North/South or East/West? As long as it doesnt stop me doing my cheeky right hander u-turning around the island I'm happy

East - West I think. It doesn't seem to go off too often, I think it may be triggered above a certain speed, although I may be talking out of my arse. If you're already past the lights and they are red I think you'll be OK. It's the badboys that try and cane it down Garratt lane that they are after I think.

[lucozade]

Simple rules:

The only sure thing about a red light is that it will go green. Pull back from the traffic providing you don't upset the person behind and slowly approach the red light - it goes green your already moving and away you go.

The only sure thing about a green light is that it will go red. Therefore if you are approaching one you must be able to stop. At 70mph you will have to reduce your speed otherwise depending on your distance from the light it may change and you will approach too fast.

A bit of Advanced Driving I think.

[IPAddis]

lucozade said:

Simple rules: The only sure thing about a green light is that it will go red. Therefore if you are approaching one you must be able to stop. At 70mph you will have to reduce your speed otherwise depending on your distance from the light it may change and you will approach too fast.

Following this line of reasoning, when I am about 1cm from the light, I must therefore be going slowly enough to stop if the light turns red. I estimate this would be about 0.001 mph.

Sure, you should be aware that a green light may go AMBER at any time, especially if you have seen it stay at green for some time. There is an arguement that says you should even ease up if you suspect this may happen but there comes a point where it is unsafe or impossible to stop before the light which is why we have an amber one.

A better "advanced driving" rule would be that you should always be able to either stop or finish crossing the junction in the time between the light going amber and the light going red. Hence the subject of this thread stating that that time is too short given the limit. The correct answer to this is to raise the time the light stays amber. The numpty approach is to reduce the speed limit to 30mph.

Ian A.

[oyster]

A close friend of mine actually failed his driving test several years ago when faced with the amber light dilemma (shall I/shall I not?).

He hesitated slightly and actually braked to stop on amber. The instructor failed him because there was a car close on his tail. My view - if you decide to stop on an amber, it is not your problem whether the guy behind can stop or not. Complete w*nk if you ask me.

[Whoozit]

FWIW, the Highway Code has this:

"AMBER means 'Stop' at the stopline. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"

[hornet]

I've just been on holiday in Canada for the past two weeks, and on their main roads they have a set of amber flashing "prepare to stop" lights about 50 yards before the actual traffic lights. If you reach the warning lights and they're not flashing, it means the main lights are not about to change, and you can safely carry on without worrying about throwing the anchor overboard. If the warning lights start flashing, you prepare to stop, as you WON'T make it through the main lights before red. That's a bloody good idea if you ask me - at least it gives you a sporting chance!

Seems like common sense, but there's no revenue generation, which would explain why the road safety lobby here haven't suggested it. They only want reduced casualties AND income, after all.

[paolow]

hornet said:

I've just been on holiday in Canada for the past two weeks, and on their main roads they have a set of amber flashing "prepare to stop" lights about 50 yards before the actual traffic lights. If you reach the warning lights and they're not flashing, it means the main lights are not about to change, and you can safely carry on without worrying about throwing the anchor overboard. If the warning lights start flashing, you prepare to stop, as you WON'T make it through the main lights before red. That's a bloody good idea if you ask me - at least it gives you a sporting chance! Seems like common sense, but there's no revenue generation, which would explain why the road safety lobby here haven't suggested it. They only want reduced casualties AND income, after all.

they use the same system in western australia. often they dont have flyovers on thier motorways and just have big junctions and the lights are preceeded by a huge flashing thingy that lets you know of an impending change. sounds like common sense to me.