John McClellan wrote:
A few thoughts,
First off, yellow light duration is set according to MNDOT guidelines.
One would think so, anyway. But in reality, many are not. In the very same document Mr. McClellan quotes, it also states there should be an all-red clearance time of 1 to 5 seconds before traffic gets a green light. I can name intersection after intersection where the all-red time is zero. How many dozen such examples does it take to refute the idea that all traffic lights are adjusted to MNDoT guidelines?
As some folks here have already pointed out, extending
the yellow time longer will just give another car the
opportunity to sneak through OR will increase the
danger to the person that does actually yield to the
yellow instead of blasting through.
Those folks would be wrong in my opinion. Yes, if many lights began exhibiting very long yellow light intervals, people might start running them in greater numbers.
However, the suggestions so far pointedly and erroneously avoid the real and reasonable suggestion made. It's practically a straw man. The point was increasing the yellow clearance interval ONLY at those intersections which have proven to be incursion accident prone and in which the yellow interval is either shorter than guidelines or on the short side of the range of suggested intervals. That is what the series of articles in the Weekly Standard suggested, and is likewise what I was suggesting.
Another option that has been used to decrease intersection crashes is to increase the "hold" time on the red - lengthen the duration of the red in all directions before changing the intersecting green light. This gives the benefit of clearing the intersection while still making it clear that a person has run the red light.
Yes, that would help, although any increase in cycle time reduces the amount of traffic that can be moved through the intersection in a given interval. And yes, that's also true of longer yellows as well.
I think it's also worth commenting that the purpose of
a yellow light is not to convey "Oh, let me interupt
my cell phone call to punch the gas so I don't get
delayed by 30 seconds at a red". It's also not to
say "OHMYGOD! The lights going to change, jam the
brakes!". It's to communicate to the driver that
the light will be changing soon, and if they can
safely slow and stop to do so, but if they are too
close to stop then they should procede through the
light safely and clear the intersection. The key
thing here is the driver's decision about their speed
and their ability to stop before the light. There
will always be people that are either unable or
unwilling to make an intelligent/safe decision.
I would argue that too many people pay so little attention to driving that they are incapable of making such an intelligent/safe decision. But what's that got to do with proper use of red light cameras?
As I said before, I support the idea of red-light cameras IN THEORY. I'm all in favor of giving red light and stop sign runners expensive tickets, several of them a day, if necessary.
But it's the devil in the details of implementation that bugs me. I am unable to find not one single American instance where red-light camera usage was done correctly. Instead of setting the yellow and red light clearance intervals correctly at accident prone intersections, and THEN placing red light cameras at them, cities like San Diego and Washington D.C. did otherwise. They placed the cameras at intersections with high traffic volumes, often at the bottom of down grades, and ignored many of the safety problem intersections. In surveys of the camera intersections, many were found to have sub-standard (shorter) yellow clearance times -- thus making it almost impossible to make "an intelligent/safe decision" because there wasn't enough time to react.
While paying lip service to safety, both the companies and governments have only focused on revenue.
That's my beef.
I will gladly support Minneapolis installing and using red light cameras if:
1. They provide the public a list of the accident rates at the top 500 intersections in the city.
2. They provide the public with the light cycle timing information for the same 500 intersections.
3. They only install red light cameras at intersections selected from that same list of 500.
4. They produce a reasonable piece of legislation codifying the privacy and accuracy requirements which any vendor company must adhere under penalty of law, not just some contractual language.
5. Anyone receiving a ticket at an intersection where the timing can be shown to have been altered outside of accepted traffic engineering values can have it dismissed.
Another valuable resource is this document that gives the stats on a red light camera test project here in the Metro back in 1998, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/reports/MIRSRPT98.pdf Note some of the statistics, at 5th Ave & 9th St in Mpls, 56% of violators entered the intersection 1.0 seconds after red, 35% after 1.5, and a frightening 18% after 3.5 seconds!!
Must be the same people who actually speed up to run the stop sign on my neighborhood corner.
Chris Johnson - Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
