Texas expected to ban red light cameras

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Uvaman2, May 20, 2019.

  1. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    667
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    We have that here, countdowns but not everywhere.
     
  2. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,994
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    A lot of the pedestrian areas around me have them. I don't remember where I was, I think it was Vietnam, but they had countdown timers for the green and yellow lights. If they can implement it there, why can't we?
     
  3. termite

    termite [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,668
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004

    However the rear-end accidents increase only because the dumb asses who had every intention of running that light slam thier brakes on when they see the red light camera. They of course are being followed by a dumb ass who does not understand proper following distance, or got on the gas because they plan on getting through the intersection as well, maybe combined with distracted driving. So sure, let's blame the camera instead of the moron who was running the red light, I mean pushing the blame to something else is the American Way right?

    The only thing the red light camera did was highlight that there is generally something broken with the US drivers education system, and/or that there are too many dumb asses on the road.

    Changing the yellow time makes little difference in safety, in the "camera bad" argument all it does is increase/decrease the buffer on whether you ran the red light (in reality of course gives time for the intersection to clear between lights). It doesn't change the fact that the intersecting road(s) also has a red light that some dumb ass will potentially run.

    The implementation of the camers is absolutely broken though, from ownership by private/profit based companies to some shady local governments using them as a cash source, instead of a tool to deter dumb asses from running red lights.

    That being said, it is the States decision to ban them, and that is how it is supposed to work.
     
  4. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,299
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Me: When did RED make a light camera? And why would they ban it?
    When techie overtakes common sense. LOL!
     
    GoldenTiger and termite like this.
  5. sharknice

    sharknice [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,617
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Yeah when I first saw the post title I thought it was some new camera tech too lol.
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  6. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,184
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    I have those. They help so if it's close I start to slow down already. I am not in a hurry enough to try and beat lights.
     
  7. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Funny ... I wish they would implement them where I live. People are running reds all the time. Considering a red light camera doesn't trigger unless the light is already red, and then a car enters the intersection, I think it is more than fair.
     
  8. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,792
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    You might think that but then the red light camera has now allowance for safety manuvers or circumstance in any fashion. Plus most municipalities make it where you can't properly fight one in court. (Face your accuser.) And as stated above many of the companies adjust the yellow to red light timing to actually increase the number of tickets they issue to improve their profit.
     
  9. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    I can't speak for how the program works in the US, but I am familiar with how it works here in the great white north, specifically Ontario. The pilot program they did in Toronto reduced angle collisions by 60% and collisions resulting in death or injury by 25%. In Toronto a number of high risk intersections were identified and cameras were rotated through these intersections. Yellow light length was not changed as the length is determined by road speed, following provincial guidelines.
     
  10. nutzo

    nutzo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,377
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    +100

    As others have said, if safety was the issue, they would lengthen the yellow light or implement a 1-2 second delay before the cross light turns green.
    Most the revenue for red light cameras out here in Southern California came from people who didn't come to a complete stop before turning on a red light.
    On one of the ways I could drive home from work, there was a couple red light cameras.
    Before turning right on a red light, I would always come to a complete stop, count to 3 and then turn, just to make sure I didn't get hit with a ticket.
    Lost count of how many times someone behind me would lay on the horn.
    I finally decided to no longer take that route, and did my shopping elsewhere on the way home, so that city lost tax revenue.


    As for the money grab, it's not as much as the local governments originally expected.
    Most the local cities have pulled the red light cameras as they mainly made money for the private companies running them, and not much ended up going to the city.
     
  11. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Did red light cameras cause these collisions? Or were the collisions caused by drivers following too close? Correlation vs causation.
     
    GoldenTiger and dvsman like this.
  12. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,043
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    This is the problem with the fantasy of man as a rational actor.

    You're approaching the problem as if every red light runner was conducting an on the fly cost:benefit and risk assessment.

    "Why, if we can just alter the constants, people will recognize the poor value proposition of red light running and come to their senses."

    And yet, states with the death penalty still have murders.

    Weird.
     
    GhostCow and cyclone3d like this.
  13. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,082
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    On its own, it's not a cause, but it's not just a correlation. Red light cameras changed drivers' behavior (they will stop at a yellow light even if it's unsafe to do so), increasing the rate of accidents at intersections due to another existing and prevalent contributing factor (people tend to follow too close).
     
  14. cyclone3d

    cyclone3d [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,980
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    I was almost plowed into by a red-light runner the other day and I didn't even start moving till a couple seconds after the light turned green.

    That being said, I have accidentally run a red light a few times... but there are a large number of people in my area that run red lights on purpose.

    What they really need is to post police officers at problem intersections so they can nab them right away.

    As for murderers... yeah.. give them the death penalty. We don't need to be wasting tax payer dollars at the tune of 40k+ a year to give them free housing, food, medical, schooling, etc.
    And releasing them isn't an option either as a lot of them will just go kill more people once they are out.

    I've seen too many news stories of this exact thing happening within days of them being released form prison after years of being in there to think otherwise.
     
  15. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    It is actually cheaper to put someone in prison for life vs giving them the death penalty, mostly due to the long and costly legal process which can take decades. A study of the California death penalty system came to the conclusion that the death penalty is 18 times more expensive than a sentence of life without parole.
     
  16. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,184
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    It's a start. You need a starting point. Maybe jail? Loss of license?
     
  17. Shalafi

    Shalafi Consigliere

    Messages:
    22,463
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    I support banning red light cameras.
     
  18. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,184
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    They never bothered me. I do not run red lights. Not in a hurry.
     
  19. viivo

    viivo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,100
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Those and on any road with a speed limit of 45 or more are the signs on either side with flashing lights. The problem* with the latter is if they aren't flashing as I approach them, I speed up because I know they'll start right as I pass and won't make the light at the speed limit.


    *problem being the incentive to speed up, not the possibility of missing the light.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  20. sharknice

    sharknice [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,617
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    If you've ever turned right on red without coming to a complete full stop you have technically run a red light.

    If you actually come to a complete stop when it's clear to go you're just wasting time and fuel.
     
  21. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,184
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Like I said, I am in no hurry. I stop if there are cars even close. If not on the turn, it's a fast stop.
    Tell people to stop being in such a hurry.
     
  22. Vader1975

    Vader1975 Gawd

    Messages:
    814
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    That shorting yellow light times comment above is accurate. My city did it and caused many deaths and got sued. We dropped the redlight system and increased the yellow by a full second from the original yellow time and now our accident counts are FAR lower.
     
  23. Vader1975

    Vader1975 Gawd

    Messages:
    814
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Ours in Michigan are heat sensors pointed down from polls on the coners of the street with sheilds around the front. They look like camera's kinda but they are just giant heat sensors for traffic red light control. Gets green to come up much faster especially late with no one around.
     
  24. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,495
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Really? I didn't know, a lot must have changed since I last was there. Is it the big cities, Dallas, Houston ?
     
    Lakados likes this.
  25. Lakados

    Lakados [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,490
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Yes with budget cuts private industry has stepped up in a lot of places to pay for roads and bridges in the busiest parts of the US, it is quite the site to behold for the rest of us non Americans who find it amusing that they would do this.
     
  26. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,994
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    There are 2 things you need to know about Texas and Red Lights that I have not seen anyone bring up yet.

    I am a Texan and beat 2 red light cameras in court and did not pay 2. So I have some experience.

    The primary purpose of the red light cameras was to catch people making right hand turns. In Texas the law states that to make a right hand turn, you must STOP and then make the turn. In Texas, stop -> s.t.o.p (Stupid Texans Only Pause). Most people only yield on a right turn. This is what the vast majority of the cameras were being used to catch. Very few people run red lights. But many people only yield on right hand turns. Even though the law had always been like that, it was never enforced in any observable way (unless cops needed to pull you over for something). So it was an easy cash grab initially.

    The second part is the real reason the lights are being removed. When the state of Texas passed the law allowing red light cameras, they put in some exceptional provisions because of the nature of the crime. The camera captures the license plate of the vehicle and the ticket is sent to the owner of vehicle. This is different than if a police officer caught you running a red light. The driver would get the ticket. And it would be a criminal offense. Because the city can't prove it was you driving, the state legislator said that a red light camera violation is to be treated as a civil offense, not a criminal offense. Because you would be protected by certain laws (like the Constitution) if it was a criminal offense. The second REALLY IMPORTANT part, was that the state legislature made it so that cities could not issue warrants for unpaid red light cameras, and they also couldn't send it to collections. Simply put, they had no legal way to enforce the fine. Only through fear and scary sounding letters could they persuade people to pay the fine. The only theoretical way they could have enforced it was to have the DMV or tax collector prevent you from renewing your license or registering your vehicles. This was never attempted though, because of the inter-department friction it caused. The DMV and tax office weren't going to deal with the bullshit and hassle of telling people they couldn't drive in order to give the police department money. They told the police departments to go pound sand.

    So as a result, after several years of these red light cameras wrecking havoc on right hand turners, people on the Internet figured out that the state law said there was no way to enforce the fine. So they just ignored them. And they told their friends and family on social media about it. And eventually so many people ignored the fines that cities started removing them. They had to remove the lights for their own financial well being. The lights were operated by a 3rd party. The cities would "deputize" employees at the company and that was the person that would officially authorize the violation. If you ever got one of these violations and payed it, you would have noticed that you mailed it to a private company, most likely out of state. Not to the city in which the violation occurred. Usually the way it worked was that the cities entered into contracts with these 3rd party companies and companies would get a guaranteed amount of money and the city would get whatever was over that. As more and more people started avoiding the fine, the cities still owed these companies the money as part of the contract. That is why they would spread so quickly to other intersections, because they were trying to overcome the loss of revenue from other intersections (like as locals started stopping on right hand turns or knowing exactly what they were allowed to do when it came to pushing the yellow light).

    TL;DR: The red light cameras in Texas made majority of their profit off of right hand turns only yielding and not fully stopping. State legislator gave the cities no legal way to enforce the fine and people started ignoring in mass.
     
    sharknice likes this.
  27. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,124
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    There are always going to be drivers following too close. But the effect was people would see the cameras (you can't miss them) and then lock their breaks up if they missed the yellow light thus causing a rear end collision.
    But like I said before; this has NOTHING to do with public safety. I lived in the 1st city in Tennessee to adopt red light camera. A company called RedFlex came to the city officials and presented them with a plan that went like this: "You are leaving millions of dollars on the table. Look at the additional revenue this city has generated with our system. Here is our proposal. Sell it to the public as a safety issue. Guaranteed success." Suddenly local talk shows were talking about how dangerous intersections were and we needed to do something about. Wasn't long we had red light camera all over the place. ALSO, politicians had to subvert the state constitution to make this legal. It was a far reaching and politically corrupt money grab; that is all!
    Crap like this was one of the biggest motivations to move away from the city and out into the country. City officials were blatantly crooked. Time after time city officials were caught lining their pockets with embezzled funds and got a slap on the wrist instead of jail time.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
  28. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    A person breaking doesn't cause a collision. Someone following too close, to be able to fully stop in time, causes a collision. If people make the choice to follow to close its on them ... not the person they run into the back of.
     
  29. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,082
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    You're confusing fault with cause. A cause is an event that contributes to an effect. If you remove a cause, then the effect cannot occur. If the front driver does not slam on their brakes a rear-end collision cannot occur from the rear driver simply following too close.




    However, since it's known that following too closely is dangerous because people have slow reaction times and the actions of other drivers is largely unpredictable, the rear driver is at fault since he had the opportunity to prevent the accident by removing a cause of it.
     
  30. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,184
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    If the driver doesn't slam on their brakes, then he would hit whatever it is they were stopping for, which could be something out of their control.
     
  31. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,082
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    That doesn't change the fact that "slamming on the brakes" is an event that helped caused a "rear-end collision" event.

    When you're doing an RCA on why the number of rear-end collisions are increasing at red-lights, you need to look for anything that's causing them that you can do something about to mitigate the problem
    --The obvious one is that rear drivers are following too closely. But that by itself does not cause a rear-end collision. You can tailgate someone all day long, and as long as they don't suddenly stop, you're never going to run into them.
    --So what's the missing event that's needed for a rear-end collision... sudden stopping of the forward driver. Just like tail-gating, sudden stops by themselves do not cause collisions. You can slam on your brakes all day long and as long as there's nobody tailgating you, you're not going to get hit because someone was following too close. It's when both causes are combined that a rear-end collision happens.


    So what could be causing red-light collisions to happen more frequently.
    1) More people are tailgating, and/or
    2) more people are stopping suddenly at red-lights.

    Let's look at why more people might be tail-gating.. more idiots are driving.
    --Can we do anything about that? Not really, people are idiots.

    How about why are more people slamming on their brakes are red-lights?
    --They're afraid of running the red-light.
    -- --Why? Because there's a red-light camera that's being used to issue incontestable tickets for running red-lights.
    -- -- -- Can we do something about that? Yes. Take down the cameras.
     
  32. Exercate

    Exercate Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    194
    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    About Time!!! ... I still have the picture that they took of me stopped BEHIND another car at a red light in Dallas.
     
  33. Hagrid

    Hagrid [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    8,184
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Basically you said what everybody else has said and nothing at the same time. :)
    We know the causes, we need prevention or something to make it so they think twice.

    Not sure why if they go to court, it gets thrown out. I could care less who the driver is. If it's your car, you pay.
    Jail sentences? All people do not kill/rob/rape/etc since there are serious consequences if caught.
     
  34. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,082
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    The person I quoted in the quote you quoted apparently doesn't. So I hope you'll forgive me if I misunderstood you to be arguing the same point.

    Prevention of what exactly, running red lights? rear-end collisions? both?
     
  35. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,336
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Has nothing to do with insurance. It's the equivalent of a parking ticket. Charge 1k and every single ticket will go to court and there's not guarantee you'll win, once a lawyer is involved. As i said above, my parents lived in a place that had them and they dropped them, because people just wouldn't pay the tickets. In some cases, it increased running of lights, because people ran them on purpose in protest (not making that up) and NEVER paid them (and they never will). I got one in a place where they said I was speeding in a school zone. But the light wasn't flashing to indicate it was within the the time for lower speed limits. It was 75 bucks. I never paid it. And I never will. Others I paid...they were 20-25...and even those were questionable, but I just paid it to get it over with.

    My insurance company was never notified and they never will be.
     
  36. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,336
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    The speed limit in TX on the interstate is often 75 and sometimes as high as 85. They only write tickets if you're going at least 10 mph over the speed limit. They write lots of tickets. I drove those roads for years and I've seen it, repeatedly. I've gotten a speeding ticket from a red light (which I grudgingly paid, because I wasn't driving 400 miles to challenge it) and I think I could have beaten it, because it was ridiculous. The speed limit was 40 or 45. Just before a redlight camera, they lower it to 35 and not far past that light it's back to the old limit. Speed trap it was.
     
  37. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,294
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    This is referred to the City of Plano, Texas.

    -first-hand experience
     
  38. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,082
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    We've got a road that is 45 MPH except for one intersection where the cross-road is 35. I know three people who got 10-over speeding tickets because there are "Reduced Speed Ahead" signs on each side of that intersection. I don't know if they held up in court of not... but knowing this county, they probably did.
     
  39. wizzi01

    wizzi01 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,017
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    A red light camera will trigger even if you leave the intersection before the light is red, but are in the intersection when the light turns red.
     
  40. MMitch

    MMitch Gawd

    Messages:
    667
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    First results in bold of google... pasted below.

    The red light camera went off. ... "Drivers are only ticketed via the camera system for entering the intersection after the light has turned RED. If you enter a photo red light intersection on a green oryellow light you will not be ticketed by the camerasystem.
     
    Draax likes this.