You know Duker that has a definite ring of truth to it. As I stated in a previous post I have a hard time effectively stopping or clearing the intersection on changes now in heavy vehicles. This has never been a problem till just recently. You might as well quit wasting you're time on bbcrud. He's not giving your facts due consideration-if he were he'd have come around by now.

 

You are the smartest 5 yr old from texas i have ever met

scholarbb 5/M

 

Hey, I'm not arguing that extending yellows is a bad idea. The discussion is about RLCs and you're living in an ideal world where everyone means well and would stop if only given the opportunity.

I live near one of the most dangerous intersections in the Phoenix area. The problem there has not been the length of yellow. (The problem has been identified in other areas though)

Making longer yellows is the answer for people that would try to stop if they could do so safely. This, however, is not a flat, single-dimensional, issue.

 

Oh yeah, that's it. I'm like Duker and can only see on angle at a time.

Yellow lights intervals, the panacea for all red light running issues.

Duker's Washington info is flawed and that's the only current thing he's come up with.

scholarbb - What facts did I not give due consideration to? Point them out then tell me what's wrong with my rebuttal to them? Please? Show me where every installed RLC is a bad idea and adjusting all yellow light intervals in the best remedy to innocent people being injured or dying at the hands of a careless driver.

 

Please refrain from the snide remarks. If they continue this thread will be locked. There is good information being shared and discussed/debated here so don't ruin it with personal attacks.

 

By the numbers
● 35 mph: common speed limit for city streets.
● 51 feet per second: distance a vehicle can travel at 35 mph.
● 1.5 seconds: time it takes for quicker drivers to react (and hit the brakes).
● 77 feet: distance a vehicle traveling at 35 mph would travel before the driver hits the brakes.
● 3.7 seconds: total time it takes for vehicles traveling at 35 mph to stop (including a driver's reaction time), under ideal conditions.
● 189 feet: distance it takes for vehicles traveling at 35 mph to stop, under ideal conditions.
Source: Sgt. Tim Beam, Tucson police traffic investigations unit.

Maybe add a 50% safety buffer to this formula to allow for slower reaction times.

(Then install RLCs to catch the buttheads that still run lights!)

 

IF this is happening then the cameras are deployed wrong and maybe the local government IS trying to generate revenues. That wouldn't be a problem with the cameras, just their use.

Here's how cameras can be used properly.

http://www.azgohs.state.az.us/redLight_cameras.html

 

Thanks. Sorry for anything I did.

 

Most Phoenix yellow lights are already 3 to 5 seconds. The streets they are stationed on vary in speed ranges of 35 to 50mph.

5 seconds is more than long enough for anyone who is actually paying attention to what they're doing (which should be driving) to come to a full, safe stop. Yellow means slow down, not try to race the light. Some people seem to have forgotten that.

Also, anyone who pays attention knows that the little "DON'T WALK" signs blink 13 times at major intersections before going solid. At the moment they go solid, the light changes from green to yellow. So not only do you have the 5 seconds of yellow, but you have the approximately 10 seconds of flashing "DON'T WALK" to warn you as well.

Ya know what's the funniest about this? All intersections in Phoenix with RLC's have big signs well before the intersection pointing out that the intersection has an RLC. So if people get popped for running a red light, it's their own fault for being stupid.

Want to get rid of RLCs? Stop running red lights. All of a sudden, those cameras become useless.

No they don't. There is a red painted line for every RLC in Phoenix. This line extends from the edge of the sidewalk (which is past the STOP line and past the crosswalk) across the road. Multiple pictures are taken. A picture of the car before it crosses the line clearly showing the light as red. And a picture of the license plate of the car after it's exitted the intersection.

Since you don't live here, and it doesn't appear you've ever been here, you can't fully grasp just how easy a RLC ticket is to avoid and how well the system has been designed. The RLC tickets in Phoenix are impossible to beat in court if you were driving your own car. And you'd realize that anyone who is still running red lights at those intersections is absolutely retarded.

Back to the original question (I didn't see anyone point this out)
You are absolutely correct. He's going to end up paying more in the long run. And statue of limitations doesn't apply here. Did he receive a ticket in the mail? Yes? Then he's been cited/charged well within any statue of limitation that may actually exist.

 

Nice post xBum.

 

On October 10, a red light camera in the city of Mesa, Arizona issued James Hamburg a ticket for allegedly entering an intersection less than one second after the light had turned red. The problem with the allegation is that Hamburg had been dead for five years at the time of the supposed violation.

Even harder to beat when you been dead 5 years

Are your RLCs' any different than the rest of the countries? Lets assume they are.

Here is you states DOT report on em
http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/public.../PDF/AZ550.pdf

City of Phoenix Aggregate Conclusions
The effects of red light cameras are assessed at 10 intersections in Phoenix equipped with
RLCs. The final results are based on the comparison group method results, which is the best
method available for the Phoenix data. The results for target approaches are:
• Angle crashes decreased by 42%
• Left-turn crashes decreased by 10%
• Rear-end crashes increased by 51%
• The estimated net crash benefit is $4,504/year for the 10 target approaches

The estimated impacts on all approaches are less than those on target approaches. The results
for all approaches (including both RLC and non-RLC approaches at RLC intersections) are:
• Angle crashes decreased by 14%
• Left-turn crashes decreased by 1%
• Rear-end crashes increased by 20%
• The estimated net crash benefit is - $324,836/year (i.e., negative, meaning more costs than benefits) for the 10 intersection approachesSpillover effects do not appear to be present. The net crash benefit on the targeted approaches
is relatively small because the RLCs in Phoenix contribute more to reducing angle and leftturn PDO crashes than to reducing fatalities and injuries associated with these crashes. In
addition, a few intersections dis-benefited significantly from the installation of RLCs and
these intersections heavily weighted the “average” benefit for the 10 RLC intersections.

Ok lets get back on topic

1 check your states laws. In california you cannnot get tickets by mail they have to be served, just like every other legal document

2 does the red light camera have a picture of the drivers face? Unobstructed? If not the ticket will be thrown out.

I dont know the laws in arizona But there are lots of resources on the net.

On a personal note Yes ive been to arizona, no i wouldnt want to move there.
I put up the stage for country thunder 3 years in a row and did the same thing up here for twin lakes

Oh and its pretty easy to avoid an RLC. Good driving skillz and a license plate cover that obliterates its view from angles
Very beutiful land. However recently i have learned that a couple of its citizens arent smart enough to figure out they are being taken

 

Well, I guess he wasn't driving his own car, now was he?
Rear enders are the result of idiots following too close. So I guess if someone chooses to stop at a red light, they always face the possibility of getting rear ended. So by your logic, you shouldn't stop and just take your chances with the sideways traffic? Tell me something genius. Which type of accident would you rather be in? A rear ender or a t-bone?

Thank you for that link. Maybe you skipped this part:And maybe this one BIG advantage:Hmmm... So now I'm more likely to get rear ended and have possible damage to my car, but I'm much less likely to end up in the hospital and be out of work for a few days.
Being taken by what? The RLC's pay for themselves. I don't run red lights, so I don't have to worry about receiving a red light ticket in the mail. yourself.

In short: Your narrowsightedness and fear of the government is all too apparent. If you can't see the huge benefits RLCs have over the disadvantages, then you should just give up now.

 

On a more intelligent note, Country Thunder is held out in the sticks, so it's now obvious you don't know much about Phoenix traffic. The traffic out in Queen Creek and now Florence is nothing compared to the targetted intersections in the general Phoenix area. I can't remember how many miles I drove leaving CT in QC before I actually saw a traffic signal. And when leaving the event in Florence, I believe it was even farther.

 

Keep drinking that Kool Aid

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilit...idArticle=1082



But the bad news for Retting doesn't end there. Curious about some of Retting's crash conclusions, the National Motorists Association's Jim Kadison secured accident data for the red-light-camera intersections Retting used in his latest Oxnard report. Retting had estimated that the use of red-light cameras had resulted in a tiny 3 percent increase in rear-enders at all signalized intersections. But after expanding the definition of an intersection to include 100 feet into the approaches, where rear-end accidents would logically occur, Kadison found that during the time of Retting's study, rear-end crashes at red-light camera intersections increased from 18 (before installation) to 156, for a total rear-end accident increase of 767 percent.
When I called Retting to needle him about the inconsistencies in his studies, he grew peevish. "The studies speak for themselves. . . . You can look at it any way you like, I have nothing to apologize for." Somehow, he seemed to discount the criticism, since I was not at his "professional level" and had no grasp of logistic regression models. "If you don't have the ability to appreciate the logistic regression model," he condescended, "it's really a waste of time." Perhaps so. But I can appreciate Greg Mauz's assessment of Retting's reports: "Swiss cheese doesn't have as many holes."

Retting, to be sure, isn't the only fuzzy mathematician in the automated enforcement arena. Police departments, who are coached by their contractors to preach the safety gospel every chance they get, tend to advertise success by displaying the declines in violations, while failing to produce numbers that prove cameras reduce accidents. When I called the D.C. police for accident statistics, spokesman Kevin Morison said, "We don't have comprehensive data on accidents by intersection at this point." He then referred me to Lockheed Martin IMS, whose spokesman, Mark Maddox, proceeded to refer me back to the D.C. police. When I told him the police had referred me to him, he sniffed, "Obviously the numbers speak for themselves." Maybe they would, if we knew what they were, I said. "We're not in the accident monitoring business," Maddox explained. "We don't have that ability, no." Odd that a company whose raison d'etre is supposedly reducing accidents has no way of knowing if accidents are being reduced.