Hey, there! Log in / Register
Governor wants green light for red-light cameras
By adamg on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 7:59am
They have them in other states. Now Gov. Patrick wants legislation to let cities and towns put cameras atop traffic signals to photograph and fine drivers caught going through red lights.
Interestingly, he put it in his latest proposal to deal with the state's latest fiscal problems - so that's how he's going to soften the blow of cuts in local aid to cities and towns (click on the link, then either scroll down or search on "red light").
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Red Light Cams
Nailing people who go through red lights is a laudable goal (as I have recently come within feet of being T-boned by people running them - by at least 2 seconds. If I didn't have a habit of looking both ways before proceeding at a green, I would have bought it both times).
However, this proposal is in the same jurisdiction that has refused to enact a primary seat belt law, right? Are you kidding? At best this is a transparent attempt at "revenue enhancement".
No Green Light for Red Lights
You gotta be kidding me. I mean, I've seen them used overseas and in other states - but those are places that properly aim, allign, time, and maintain their signals ... and have unambiguous and properly maintained lane markings!
I have seen lights go from green to red with no warning, as well as from red to green while the opposing signal was green - even got pulled over for that and insisted that the cop go take a look because I was going to take a video of it. (the ticket was voided).
If live humans can make that mistake because of a poorly maintained and timed signal - and I see a lot of them in these parts - how the heck will a camera on the light do a better job? How will it even get the right car when the light is rotated 20 degrees off of face-on because the signal is mis-aimed?
What about bikes?
Can they extend this to bagging and tagging the looney bicyclists
that zip through stop signs, mowing down pedestrians left and
right as well?
statistics please
statistics please.
Oh, and a physics lesson: 2500 lbs @30mph vs. 200 lbs at 10mph - which causes more damage?
Listen, cyclists who ride
Listen, cyclists who ride like idiots put everyone in danger, INCLUDING themselves. You've never swerved to avoid hitting a cyclist who just blew through a stop sign, ran a red light, zig-zagged in front of several lanes of traffic? If not, you're either driving through this city with your eyes closed or you just plain don't drive very much, which is great, because your attitude toward educating urban cyclists of safety rules is pretty poor.
See Below
You rant and rave, but lets see some numbers!
Like I said below - I'll welcome enforcement of rules for cyclists WHEN AND IF that enforcement is blind to mode. That means MEANINGFUL jaywalking fines and consistent enforcement of MV laws against motor vehicles and cyclists ... you don't get to single out people and pick and choose!
I bike through the city much more than I drive. Either time I see plenty of infractions by multi-ton vehicles driven by distracted people. I see bikes ignore signals, but they are endangering themselves and their potential impact on pedestrians (who are usually jaywalking anyway) is far less than drivers of said multi-ton vehicles who blow through red lights and plow into crosswalks, honking with one hand and yammering into the other.
Cyclists aren't the problem here - they are part of the problem. Most cyclists have licenses and drive too, ya know! The fact that MA has almost no requirements to get a license, has some of the most ignorant drivers in the nation year after year after year, and doesn't enforce traffic laws is the REAL problem.
Yep, overall there is a lack
Yep, overall there is a lack of commitment in this state to establishing and enforcing rules. I never had to take a test to become licensed in Massachusetts. All that was required was forfeiture of my California license. There are some differences in the driving laws, but who is to say whether I know that? The state certainly didn't check on the matter. If it were actually difficult to become a licensed driver, we might see a lot more cyclists and transit riders. But few people seem to concern themselves with the idea that operating heavy equipment might entail risk.
I looked into retesting
Then I found, to my horror, that the exam and test that I went through in Oregon was 100x more difficult and vastly more comprehensive than what MA demanded.
At the time, Oregon had more sheep than people. I assumed that MA would be badass because the conditions were so much more intense. Silly me.
A relative at the Oregon DMV now tells me that they may suspend reciprocity (require passing the OR tests) for people coming from states that do poorly on the knowledge of road rules tests done each year by the insurance companies. The state has doubled its population in the last 25 years and there have been some problems with undertrained drivers from states that lack comprehensive exams.
BIG BROTHER
[size=50]BIG BROTHER[/size]
Big Brother...
... wants everyone to stop driving like jerks. So does little brother, and grandma.
Mokuba! Be quiet!
Mokuba! Be quiet!
A good start
I don't mind in the least "revenue enhancement" on the backs of those who break the law and endanger my and my kids' lives. Tag 'em, tow 'em, beat 'em on the kidneys, string 'em up from wreckers at major intersections.
However (bracing for backlash), I'd love it if, in the course of this new enforcement, cops could find a way to penalize bicyclists running red lights as well. Sure, the danger is generally more to themselves than to me, packed in sheet metal - except when I have to slam on brakes for a cyclist and the sheet-metal-package behind me smacks into me; but we already enforce laws deisgned to help people who won't help themselves (e.g., helmet laws).
More indirectly - when I have to idle longer while waiting for a string of cyclists to run the light, I'm spewing more fumes (literally and metaphorically) than I need to, as is everyone behind me.
Cameras alone wouldn't do it, of course; we'd need to require bike license tags - another revenue enhancement idea that would mean, finally, cyclists would be paying a bit for the roads they use.
I'm not anti-bike, though I am old, fat and lazy. I'm glad all in all that more people are cycling during rush hour. I'd just be happier if traffic laws were enforced across the board. And next: jaywalkers, 'specially them pesky college kids ...
When I see this happening ...
I'll be happy too. Then again, I see most red lights as a coffee sipping and chamois-adjusting opportunity.
Until then, I will do what I must to avoid being run down by some dimwit chowing a sandwich who thinks that blocking the bike lane and leaving a 2" opening at the crosswalk = yielding to cyclists.
Two points
I will address two points:
"finally, cyclists would be paying a bit for the roads they use"
I seriously doubt that 200 lb cyclists do much damage at all to our road infrastructure. Remove all the cars and trucks, and I imagine the roads would not need much maintenance at all. Plus bikers pay for plenty of roads that they cannot use (limited access highways, big dig).. and no, not all road maintenance and enforcement costs come from the gas tax.
"when I have to idle longer while waiting for a string of cyclists to run the light, I'm spewing more fumes"
Though I think those cyclists were idiots for running a light in front of a car that is planning to go, consider that the extra pollution from this event is microscopic compared to the pollution that would have been produced if each of those bikers had driven instead.
" cyclists would be paying a
" cyclists would be paying a bit for the roads they use."
Let me educate you on how are roads are funded.
The gas tax hasnt been raised since...1992? As such, it barely even covers highways and limited access roads. The gas tax pays for your interstates. Bikes cannot use these roads.
Local roads are paid for by property taxes. EVERYBODY pays for property taxes.
....
As for the lights, every time a new state wants them people put up the same objections which are blown away 6 months after theyre put in.
Some arguments Ive seen here:
-Some intersections are too weird for them
---So? Who said theyd be put at every intersection? I think NYC in its entirety has 100 cameras. Theyre put at the most dangerous intersections.
-What if I get stuck in the intersection?
---Well, besides the fact that youre breaking the law by blocking the box, the camera is triggered when a car moves past the stop line, so if youre across the way, its not an issue.
-Cameras make mistakes
---Unlikely. The newest installations include full color HD images, of your license, the entire car in relation to the intersection (with light visible) and the driver. States mail you a code which you can use to access a website to see these images. If you think the images show youre NOT breaking the law, you complain, like for every other traffic citation.
-Its a money grab!
---I prefer we make money off people breaking the law and endangering lives then the general population.
-It causes accidents.
----No, it doesnt. If you stop for a light and someone behind you hits you, then theyre breaking the law, by not keeping a safe distance and are 100% at fault. That can happen with or without cameras. If a cop is parked at an intersection looking for red light runners, are there more accidents?
-They change the lights to make it more likely youll break the law.
---What a foolish thing to think. Does the state also give out druhs so they can bust you for it? What happens is that when a camera is put in, the engineers fix the signal....as someone else mentioned, some signals are simply off. The camera requires the timing to be perfect, so its possible that yellow time is lowered....because they old yellow time was wrong!
owned
owned
Seriously, think this through
This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to pick where to begin.
Others above have trashed your theory of cyclists paying for the roads. I'll just add that I'm willing to bet that I pay more in taxes than 98% of people like you that whine that cyclists don't pay their way. Way more. That should buy me a few miles on the roads.
License tags? Like, plates???? Every time I hear this idea, I lose faith in the future of the human race. OK, suppose you come up with some kind of plate that is small enough to fit on a bike. Aside from the fact that nobody will ever really use them, do you really think you'll be able to pick out the plate numbers after a bike screams by you? Most importantly, what are you trying to accomplish by having plates?
Trying to accomplish?
Maybe accountability?
How?
n/t
Tell you what
I will support your objections to licence plates for bikes and sccoters the day after the Commonwealth eliminates the registration requirements for motor vehicles.
I'm sorry, but it just seems
I'm sorry, but it just seems so impractical. While I fully support the idea that we need better cyclist education, along with greater legal clarity, I don't see how you can license a vehicle or its operator when it doubles as a children's toy.
Child's Transportation
While I would never characterize a bike as a "child's toy", bikes are "children's transportation". They are also transportation for people who cannot afford cars. They are transport for people who cannot drive cars - DUI, undocumented, etc.
Furthermore, licensing bikes would be a major headache and discourage their use for recreation and transport - something that no sensible city should be doing given the need to burn less fuel and get people exercising. It would be extreme nannystate inefficient and unworkable bureacracy and a fit of expensive stupidity to even try to implement it.
Perhaps IF and WHEN drivers are willing to shell out the full cost of driving, we can talk. Otherwise, people on bikes are actually saving taxpayer money, even if it offends some driver's sense of entitlement.
yellow light times...
There have been studies of places that have installed these cameras and typically, they make the yellow light times shorter so that more people get caught. This is contrary to the fact that longer yellow light times are safer.
can you provide a single one
can you provide a single one of these studies? (your friend's twitter page doesnt count, btw)
this is all nonsense.
Yellow light times are established by AASHTO guidelines and would never be shortened for revenue enhancement.
reminder: the MUTCD equation for change period
See Equation 5-2:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08024/...
Note that red light cameras have nothing to do with yellow or all red clearance times.
never?
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caugh...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-...
Question
* lights match *
Will this catch bikes, too?
* throws match *
* walks away whistling *
Hey now.
That match just fell into that open can of worms.
These cameras simply don't
These cameras simply don't work.
Link 1 Link 2 and can increase accidents as people stop short to avoid tickets.
Also there are so many intersections around that this will simply not work due to confusing traffic patterns (5 way intersections, arrowed lanes etc) Not to mention that in congested areas we all "block the box" while waiting for traffic to creep along to the next light.
We're going to see this
We're going to see this stuff everywhere eventually and it's sad.
The poster above nailed it, these cameras don't keep us safer. They help generate money for municipalities. Those evil law breakers that don't come to a full stop before turning right on red...those guys will suffer the most.
But MA residents will sit back and take it like they always do.
So True
Was waiting for someone to bring this up. Red light cameras cause accidents because people slam on the breaks when they see a yellow light. Then, municipalities shorten yellow lights to try and catch more people and issue more tickets. Finally, it's an invasion of privacy, an excuse to track our comings and goings. We should all find that kind of government surveillance onerous.
Not me, buddy
We don't all "block the box". Some of us have our cell phones put away and our wits about us. So we don't proceed into the intersection until we can actually get *all* the way across.
Since I am mostly a pedestrian and have to deal with the unpredictable behavior of cheaters in all sorts of vehicles, I say bring on the tickets. Then again, I'd love to see people use their turn signals, so maybe I'm just crazy.
I'm looking at you, Boston's finest, who think traffic laws do not apply to you because you have the fancy hardware on the roof.
__________________________________________________________
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
this doesn't negate the fact
this doesn't negate the fact that red light cameras cause more accidents. I moved here from a state that had them and then got rid of them because the increase in accidents was so horrible.
your cause and effect meter is off
can it really be stated as fact that red light cameras "cause" more accidents? They act as deterrents to illegal action and "cause" more people to stop for red lights. That increased stopping combined with illegally high speed, indecision on the part of the driver (perhaps he or she didn't notice the camera until after they should have begun braking) and/or poorly engineered traffic signal timing should be studied. These "studies" that merely look at the presence of a red light camera and numbers of accidents are quite unscientific and become suspect with even a modicum of critical reading....
Not cool. Not workable with
Not cool.
Not workable with our intersections. Expect lots of people will get dinged after stopping mid-intersection for some jaywalker.
Very cool, if you live on one of our "raceways"
Living on a side street, it is ridiculous the number of drivers who run the red lights near my house, have to count to at least 3 before they stop and not even then sometimes.
I guess Patrick wants to
I guess Patrick wants to piss away whatever little good will he still has in the fair commonwealth.
No. Just no.
How about if the cops we already have on patrol enforce the laws we already have? Instead of paying for cameras, how about if cops start pulling people over when they break already existing laws within a few feet of an officer?
Things I've seen in the past week while working:
Man and woman walking across Geneva Ave about 30 feet from the crosswalk, pushing baby carriage, yelling at the cars that aren't stopping for them. Cop car comes along, slows down and motions for them to cross. Doesn't do anything like roll down the window and suggest they refrain from jaywalking and child endangerment.
239479238749382 assholes blocking intersection of Dorchester Ave and Adams Street. I come up to green light, don't pull into intersection because I'd be blocking it, which is illegal. People behind me honk. Light turns red with the ass of a car across the intersection still not having completely cleared the intersection. Person behind me floors it, passes me on the right by GOING OVER THE SIDEWALK, runs red light. Cop car on the perpendicular street has just gotten a green, watches this, shakes head and laughs, drives off. Goes into bank parking lot. Gets out of car and goes into bank.
Etc.
what you just wrote sounds
what you just wrote sounds like an argument FOR the 24/7 vigilance of camera enforcement.
I see that NO ONE here gets
I see that NO ONE here gets the real implications. I work for a municipality of about 20,000 residents. Care to guess what our take is in a year for all motor vehicle infractions right now? 60K! That's it. You people are so easily scammed by the worst governor of our state ever! Mikey D move over. Property tax relief my ass! This his answer! How's those extra cops working out for ya? The question is fool you once...
Okay, crazy. But you're
Okay, crazy. But you're going to have to give us a bit more information, like whether your municipality has a traffic camera system for starters.
No we don't have cameras. no
No we don't have cameras. no one does. do you seriously think this will bring in much revenue? bear in mind this is Devalue's answer to generating revenue for municipalities not the state. Come on folks. I'm all for traffic enforcement but to do this for revenue generation is as wrong as hiding a speed limit sign behind some bushes and then pulling everyone over. Oh crap-hopefully the gov isn't reading this. This will be his next initiative. Yes we can!
it's hard to say what the revenue would be...
since currently an officer needs to see you commit the infraction (or have it brought to their attention by somebody else), allegedly there will be a dramatic increase in red-light fines.
other moving violations, such as speeding, bring in millions across massachusetts. not just the tens of thousands in your small town. millions.
now, that stated, i don't think this is going to fix the massachusetts budget. but it closes a loophole in the law that currently disallows red-light cameras.
Aww, lookit all the freaked out cagers..
You're all just fudging your frillies because you know you run red lights, and you don't want to get caught. Suck it up, suckers.