Comment on Entry: Traffic camera fines limited to parking ticket amounts, authored by Carter Mackley
1. It is a cash cow and will continue to be one and when enough revenue is not garnished then the yellow light will go from 5 seconds to 3 seconds.Start timing those yellow lights and you will see they arent all the same.In many areas the red light cameras have increased the number of accidents at those intersections.

Posted by DW at November 25, 2009 10:21 AM
2. If government was actually concerned with safety, they would make yellow light timing 5 seconds for all lights. A traffic cam can be installed to catch legitimate yellow light runners, but with 5 second timing, there is ample time for drivers to make the correct decision as they near the intersection.

Safety involves doing everything possible to prevent cross traffic collisions, so there's no reason to have short yellows unless the cities are more worried about collecting revenue and less worried about safety.

The trouble is that cities contract with camera MFGs instead of installing cameras independently. And by the time the Camera MFGs get their cut, the cameras are too expensive unless the light timing is changed to cause more gotchas. The city can then take the revenue collected and pay off the camera MFG as well as enhance its own coffers.

Those who truly concerned with safety should expect appropriate yellow timing, even if they also want cameras. And if any cameras are installed, they should be purchased outright, and not leased and paid for through ticket revenue, which creates an incentive for the camera MFG to set them up for revenue and not for safety.

Posted by Jeff B. at November 25, 2009 10:50 AM
3. Iwas up by Lake Tapps Going to a lght and noticed 2 things oshort yellow light and a camera gee what a coincidence ?! not enough $for coffures eh?

Posted by Laurie at November 25, 2009 12:17 PM
4. My wife got stung by one of these, but since the car is registered in my name I go the ticket. Strange law.

Posted by deadwood at November 25, 2009 12:20 PM
5. Yeah...Right!...Government is going to limit itself to a $20 per Traffic Light violation. After all, they are just, concerned about safety and not about revenue. What a Laugh! That in your face Lie has the same level of believability as Nickels push for the Bag Tax as a concern for saving the Environment and not about revenue.

Posted by Daniel at November 25, 2009 12:44 PM
6. I agree with the folks who argue that these are nothing but cash cows for cities who care more about revenues than safety...

BUT, who cares?

Don't run red lights. That's always been illegal. And it's always been a stupid and dangerous thing to do.

I don't care what they charge for running a red light because I DON'T DO IT.

Posted by Mickymse at November 25, 2009 01:32 PM
7. Mickymse...The point is...These are revenue hunting Traps. Similar to a Speed Trap set up at the bottom of a hill. These are set up not, to serve the well being of the Public but, are set up to serve the well being of the Government in Stealing from the Public. These are Sucker Traps with shorten yellow light timing, plain and simple. The Citizens are against this ASSAULT on their Wallets! Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal!

Posted by Daniel at November 25, 2009 03:48 PM
8. Mickymse @ #6:

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country now: Nobody cares unless it effects them directly. What a juvenile view. "I don't care if Kelo took his house, they didn't take mine, what do I care?."

Well, Mickey, sooner or later they are going to get around to grabbing or denying something that YOU like and then what? Do we care? Well maybe we won't when your time comes and then how will you feel about it?

"When they came for the Catholics I didn't say anything because I wasn't Catholic . . . and then when they came for me there wasn't anybody left."

Posted by G Jiggy at November 25, 2009 04:23 PM
9. Mickymse @ #6:

You obviously have no experience at these lights. It isn't about not running red lights. It's about not being able not to.

When you approach an intersection, there is a point of no return after which you are unable to safely stop without entering the intersection. A yellow light must be timed to allow the driver who has reached that point of no-return to safely pass thru the intersection before the light turns red. These intersections specifically and purposely are timed to not allow complete passage.

The poor unfortunate driver who approaches at just the wrong time will get nailed with a ticket, or will slam on his/her brakes and skid to a stop, possibly getting rear ended. And yes, there are stats that show such intersections have higher than normal accident rates.

Posted by Seabecker at November 25, 2009 08:41 PM
10. Seabecker...Well said.

Posted by Daniel at November 25, 2009 08:48 PM
11. This web site on vehicle stopping time & distance claims that "if a street surface is dry, the average driver can safely decelerate an automobile or light truck with reasonably good tires at the rate of about 15 feet per second (fps). That is, a driver can slow down at this rate without anticipated probability that control of the vehicle will be lost in the process."

35mph=56fps which is almost 4 seconds to stop. To add a second of reaction time, the time to stop is 5 seconds.

If you don't stop, you will travel 280' in the same 5 seconds. A 3-lane each way intersection is about 132' wide. If you are closer than 148' to the intersection when you see yellow, you won't make it thru in 5 seconds. And if you do decide to stop, with a 56' reaction distance you'll need to brake 92' from the intersection - a sportier deceleration than was noted above.

But guess what? - they don't even give you 5 seconds. You'll get about 3 seconds.

Posted by Seabecker at November 25, 2009 09:16 PM
12. Seabecker,

Nice. Best analysis I have seen yet. Man this infuriates me because the choice is slamming on the breaks causing undue stress on the vehicle, passengers and drivers behind, or gunning it to make the poorly timed lights. Either choice is bad.

This is what happens when unscrupulous local governments see $$$.

Posted by Jeff B. at November 25, 2009 09:27 PM
13. Seabecker, there are some errors in your analysis:

- You don't have to get through the intersection before the light turns red, just enter it.

- If the light turns yellow, you don't have to stop before it turns red. You just have to stop before you reach the intersection. If you're so close to the intersection that you can barely stop before the red, then by not slowing down you can easily make it into the intersection before the red.

- If you're approaching a stale green light at 35mph, you should slow down and be prepared for the light to turn yellow at any moment.

Having said all that, I do agree that 3 seconds is too short for a yellow at 35mph. But do you have any evidence of 35mph roads with 3-second yellows?

Posted by Bruce at November 25, 2009 10:19 PM
14. Yep, Bremerton, Wheaton way by Oly college. The first red light camera installed in the city. The yellow was shorten to 3 sec. It's the only profitable camera in the city. 4 lanes with lots of young drivers coming out of the college and the High school. Plus it's the main artery to the eastside.

Accident rate is as high if not higher now. I have been put in near accident situation on my bike several times, with drivers stopping short because the light changed to yellow while they were in the that decision zone.

How are you suppose to know the green is stale the length of the green is programmed to change at different times of the day.

Posted by gpat at November 26, 2009 05:15 AM
15. @13, Bruce...There are NO errors in Seabecker's analysis. However, there is Major Error in your approach in dealing with Yellow Lights. It is seriously poor traffic management to require vehicles to slow down every time they approach a stoplight intersection when the light is showing Green. As long as the light is Green, traffic should be able to move freely and efficiently at the posted speed. After all, that's the whole purpose of a Yellow Light is so the driver does Not have to Slow down as he approaches the intersection. How disruptive and inefficient to require traffic to slow every time they approach a stoplight intersection. The end result, in moderate to heavy traffic, you will cause not just, slow and go traffic, you will cause Stop and Go traffic. Again, the whole purpose of traffic lights is to expedite the flow of traffic not, force everybody when approaching an intersection to slow, come to a complete stop, look both ways and then, proceed.

Posted by Daniel at November 26, 2009 08:01 AM
16. I obviously don't blow straight through intersections, but consider a situation where you are on a completely empty road and you're making a right-hand turn. You slow way down to make the turn, and if the light's red you look to see if anyone's coming -- do you come to a full and complete stop if there isn't another car in sight?

Are you SURE?

I know it's the law, but if a police officer would not ticket you for it, I don't see how people can justify some automated system doing it with less accountability.

Posted by jvon at November 26, 2009 09:52 AM
17. Auburn is particularly onerous with these darn things. A bunch of older folks (70+) with whom I volunteer have been ticketed. That's disgraceful

I find myself in such fear of getting an unwarranted ticket that I approach a GREEN light going less than half the speed limit just so I don't get into the trap of being halfway through the intersection. Ask me if I care that I'm slowing traffic and angering drivers. So much for the safety factor as I creep through Auburn.

Posted by Ragnar Danneskjold at November 26, 2009 10:57 AM
18. re: Bruce @ 13: Tickets are not just given for entering the intersection on a red light; they are given for being in an intersection when the light turns red.

Yellow lights have always meant that you should stop if able. But that implies a reasonable length.

I have observed many cameras and have seen the flashes as cars are most of the way through. I regularly drive thru the one in Renton at Rainier/Grady. If the crosswalk light does not still say walk in my direction, I accelerate as I go thru.

I also regularly observe the previously noted camera by Olympic College in Bremerton. That is an absurdly short yellow light!

Posted by Seabecker at November 26, 2009 11:36 AM
19. Hey Ragnar, here's a few ideas...;)

The traffic cameras photograph the REAR of the vehicle (public privacy laws restrict photographs of the front); as such, the driver cannot be identified.

Tickets are mailed to the registered owner, but moving infractions are only for the driver, not the owner. As such, you can usually challenge the ticket on the basis that it cannot be shown you were driving the vehicle.

I know one individual who racked up 4 of these photo tickets within a 9 month period in Lakewood, and got every single one tossed this very way - prove he was driving. Since it could not be proven, the ticket was tossed out.

Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 26, 2009 11:51 AM
20. Standard yellow-light timing in Seattle is 4 seconds or 3.5 seconds, depending on the intersection. I believe 3.5 is more standard in downtown when speeds are typically lower due to calm traffic.

Posted by John Jensen at November 26, 2009 12:33 PM
21. Dan, The traffic cameras photograph the REAR of the vehicle (public privacy laws restrict photographs of the front); as such, the driver cannot be identified.

Cameras photograph the front and the back. There is even video for the city to determine if you actually ran the light or not in case the system misfires.

A bunch of older folks (70+) with whom I volunteer have been ticketed. That's disgraceful

Are old people incapable of breaking the law?

Posted by John Jensen at November 26, 2009 12:39 PM
22. Seabacker@18, you are simply wrong. What you describe is legal in every state and I defy you to produce evidence that anyone is being ticketed for it. I do believe the automated cameras provide 2 photos, one before the car enters the intersection and one after it enters, to prove it entered while the light was red.

Posted by Bruce at November 26, 2009 12:47 PM
23. The standard yellow light timing in Seattle and elsewhere is 4 seconds...PERIOD! Although, now, that is changing to less. How come? Because, the City of Seattle is engaged in committing Red Light Robbery!

Posted by Daniel at November 26, 2009 01:02 PM
24. Daniel, there is no "standard" time for yellow lights, you are wrong. They depends on speeds and conditions. You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that yellow-light timing is below four seconds for intersections with red-light cameras. Yellow lights were optimized throughout downtown to get more throughput and increase the all-red time so cars could clear intersections at busy downtown streets.

When's the last time you've been been to Seattle? Why does any of this concern you? Go away.

Posted by John Jensen at November 26, 2009 01:48 PM
25. The problem, of course, is sloppy bill drafting. The relevant law is RCW 46.63.070. The original bill enacting the law was ESSB 5060 (2005), prime sponsored by Sen. Haugen. What it says about penalties is this (subsection (2)): "the amount of the fine issued for an infraction generated through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall not exceed the amount of a fine issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction." That is just plain vague, and opened the door to interpretation as the cities have done: that the ceiling on penalties is capped at the maximum parking infraction in the city. Legislators were thinking the fine would be the same as a simple overtime parking violation, not for parking in a space reserved for vehicles transporting people with disabilities. [Yes, I was serving on the House Transportation Committee when this bill was adopted, and, no, I didn't catch this sloppy drafting myself. I'm sorry!]

Fortunately, it's easy to fix: just amend the law to make the cap more specific. One wonders, though, if there are any legislators willing to take the heat from the mayors and city council members in their district and sponsor such a bill.

Posted by Toby Nixon at November 26, 2009 01:54 PM
26. Oh yes, JJ @24...I have evidence and here's a link. monkeygoggles.com/?p=374 This is the standard that is accepted in cities across the country. It is common knowledge among traffic managers. That Giant Lie from Seattle is that they shorten the yellow light to give the extra second to the red light of give a longer time for throughput and increase the all-red time so cars could clear intersections at busy downtown street is RIDICULOUS! Only a Liberal would believe such Trash! Yeah...Right!...It would be impossible to add a second to the red light without taking a second from the yellow light. Get Real! For you to defend such an obvious outrages Lie means that you must work for Government and will support/defend every Rip-Off, Lie and Act of Theft perpetrated by Government. Let me put it Bluntly...Most at SP would wish that you would go away. Your input has always been less than honest and a Wasted Read!

Posted by Daniel at November 26, 2009 02:17 PM
27. #17. I watch it through Auburn too For everyone else, you'd better know what those "Photo Safe" signs actually mean.
That's Auburn code for what everyone else calls "Traffic Cameras", "Redlight Cameras", "Photo Enforced", or other actually descriptive signage.

Posted by mvray at November 26, 2009 05:36 PM
28. The greed of our politicians is out of control. It's time for a MAJOR housecleaning.

Posted by mark at November 26, 2009 07:23 PM
29. "no "standard" time for yellow lights"

that is not quite right, there is a recommendation that most states subscribe to that indicates yellow lights should be from 3 to 6 long. If I could refind the link I would have put it in here.

Posted by Ron K at November 26, 2009 09:24 PM
30. the url is http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Posted by Ron K at November 26, 2009 09:32 PM
31. John wrote:

Daniel, there is no "standard" time for yellow lights, you are wrong. They depends on speeds and conditions. You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that yellow-light timing is below four seconds for intersections with red-light cameras. Yellow lights were optimized throughout downtown to get more throughput and increase the all-red time so cars could clear intersections at busy downtown streets.

You can admit your mistake any time now...

Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 26, 2009 11:15 PM
32. I am so sick of getting a green light and having to wait for a half dozen cars to clear the intersection.

I'd raise the fines if it was up to me.

Posted by JoeBandMember at November 27, 2009 03:26 PM
33. @32: People who enter intersections when traffic is backed up generally deserve a ticket, and this is specifically NOT what these cameras are about.

Posted by Seabecker at November 28, 2009 07:58 PM
34. Hi all,

I totally agree with Westneat, and quite a few people here, that the tickets shouldn't be nearly so expensive.

But my reason is different. This is a classic pricing problem. Price low, sell more. These cameras will become more successful in the long run so there can be more of them and they'll create a lot less blowback like what's going on at SoundPolitics here if the prices are lower and people don't get so pissed off.

Then the cameras can do their job and try to civilize the people who drive cars in this area so I might have a chance to live to a ripe old age.

I't about self preservation: but I guess since this is SP I'm probably the only one who drives a smashable little car.

Best

new left conservative

Posted by new left conservative at November 28, 2009 10:52 PM
35. oRRcu6 nycdkhfqspix, [url=http://rqyxvbukxrvv.com/]rqyxvbukxrvv[/url], [link=http://szfmzzslrwpg.com/]szfmzzslrwpg[/link], http://uwjbcbgvqadx.com/

Posted by wyvvboskkra at November 30, 2009 02:14 AM
36. After driving in Germany, I am glad to see cameras at intersections. Too many drivers 3-4 go through after changing to red. I want to see more of them.Raise the fine too.

Posted by Harry at November 30, 2009 06:48 AM
37. Dan, I made no mistake. For weeks now there had been no evidence contained within these posts. Finally someone wakes up and actually provides evidence that the timing is 3.5 seconds, consistent with what the city has said in the past about various signal timing.

The entire problem with these threads has been a distinct lack of evidence. Now that there is finally some evidence, you can ask "is 3.5 seconds too low?" I don't think it is. It's consistent with operation at these speeds. The timing is standard for lights across Seattle, even those without red light cameras. The argument is that timing was reduced for red light cameras. There is no evidence that this occurred and there is no evidence that intersections without cameras have different timing.

The substantial point is that you wanted to make your conclusion without any evidence. That shows you care very little about what is truthful and real, and more about your resentment of government.

Posted by John Jensen at November 30, 2009 09:30 AM
38. Hi John,

Then I assume you now rescind your words above, since your position has been shown to be wrong?

Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 30, 2009 03:29 PM
39. My position was that there was no evidence being discussed at the time. I was completely correct.

There is nothing to be shown "wrong." I asked for evidence from the beginning and nearly two weeks later someone finally took out a stopwatch to show that the city had correctly articulated its yellow-light timing to be three-point-five seconds.

Posted by John Jensen at November 30, 2009 07:25 PM
40. OK John, whatever you say... You made a claim, and you were wrong. According to you, that's a lie (you know, like you leftists claim for President Bush). At least he had the integrity to come out and say he was wrong, which is more than you can do!

Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 30, 2009 07:59 PM
41. This is what I said: You have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that yellow-light timing is below four seconds for intersections with red-light cameras.

I was correct. Daniel had absolutely no evidence of his claim.

Posted by John Jensen at December 1, 2009 10:17 AM
42. Yes John, you are never wrong, you are always right, we should be in awe of your ability to ignore reality, twist the past, and build your own little delusional world.

Naked emperors don't go too far, John...

Posted by Shanghai Dan at December 1, 2009 06:57 PM
43. I'm not always right, but I am in this case. I understand you have difficulty with the concept of evidence, but that's mostly because you'd rather argue based on your emotions than on fact.

Posted by John Jensen at December 1, 2009 10:39 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?