Ironically, JonAnnArbor, they shorten the yellow light so those cameras catch more people and make more money - meaning that people that would have had plenty of time to go through an intersection thanks to the grace period of yield, now find themselves out in the danger zone dying.
Then don't let them do that. Problem solved. Traffic control devices have been studied for decades--the timings that should be used are mostly well-known
There is no civil right to run red lights. But hey, keep laughing about it.
Another common safety issue with red-light cameras is changed behaviour by some drivers. They know that they can get an automated ticket, so are more vigilent, hitting the brakes for yellow lights they could have properly driven through. This results in more re-end collisions or accidents by the swerving to avoid. I think this effect has been studied and quantified.
I feel bad for your friend, that must have been a bad accident. However, multiple studies have shown that red light cameras actually increase accidents at stop lights. Drivers who don't understand how they function panic and slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow, causing rear end collisions. The cameras don't increase safety, they are just a revenue generating device.
Using a rifle to destroy the camera should get this man serious jail time.... He violated the most important of the 4 safety rules..... He could not confirm what was behind of his target, placing the entire neighborhood down range of the camera in jeopardy.
Now if he had torched the thing with a Molotov or mixed up a small portion of AMFO and blew it to hell, I would have no compliant and would be buying him a drink.
A .30-06 is a "high-powered rifle?" What's a .50, then, a "super-duper-mega-high-powered rifle?"
I'm surprised it didn't mention that the .30-06 is in the same family of cartridges as the 7.62x39, used in AK-47s by terrorists insurgents around the world.
(Pedant on) Actually, .30-06 is a more powerful cartridge than 7.62x39, which is a medium-power assault rifle cartridge.
The .30-06 plays in the same league with 7.62x51 (7.62NATO), 7.92 Mauser, 7.62x54R, and .303 British. It's a battle rifle cartridge.
The article says hunting rifle, which by the standards of journalism could mean practically anything. I hope for Mr. Clark's sake it's not actually a Garand--it would really suck to lose a Garand, even in a good cause.
Finally, I agree with Mordwyn on the violation of Rule 4. Dunno about the serious jail time, although if he'd actually hit something beyond the target that would definitely be on the table. Absent evidence of that, though, serious jail time for a negligent discharge with no additional harm seems excessive.
Okay, so "extended family" (ironically enough...) might be more like it, seeing as they're all in the ".30 cal" family. An AK-47 is just scarier to most people than a Garand or some Remington.
Then don't let them do that. Problem solved. Traffic control devices have been studied for decades--the timings that should be used are mostly well-known
They didn't let them do it. They had laws preventing it in several states where it happened. They did it anyways, and since They was the government, there were no consequences to Their lawlessness.
It is nice to think that you can protect yourself from the government with a piece of paper and good intentions, but in the real world, it takes a little more that that. (On some dark days, it take a grams of lead.)
Jon, the science behind signal timings is mostly well-known, but it is still not universally applicable. And as was mentioned: highway (and I would throw police) departments were intentionally shorting yellow times to increase red-light infraction revenue. It is a despicable practice that casts doubt on the entire field of traffic management.
Red light cameras are not a bad thing, especially when they're publicized. Put advance warning signs, make the camera installations obvious. Save them for intersections with known problems. Increase clear times.
The biggest problem with them, tho, is that they are not intelligent, and additionally, people don't know the laws. If your rear bumper clears the stop bar while the light is yellow, you are legally in the intersection and have right of way to clear it. But a camera can be set up to make this a violation, which it should not be. And that's what causes the distrust. These systems have been scarred by deliberate misuse by the greedy agencies who use them as a revenue tool, not a safety tool. And like every other blood from a stone revenue tool, they inspire contempt.
b: not make the cameras ticket people who 'almost' make it.
c: But if a cop sees you go through the light even a little late, the law remains the same. Just like pre-camera enforcement.
Most fatal red-light running does not take place in the 1-2 seconds after the light changes, but rather when some moron runs them well after. So, focus on the actual safety concern instead of the revenue generator.
I know, enforcing laws with even a grain of honesty or common sense is tough. Doesn't mean we shouldn't demand it.
My objection to red-light cameras is that they're not actively monitored by humans. If you had a cop actually watching the live feed, or even watching replays, I think I'd be okay with that as a law enforcement procedure (although it's a little Big Brother-ish), so long as you could correctly identify the driver (for instance, if the monitoring cop notified a patrol cop to pull the driver over). When you have an unmonitored camera simply snapping shots, it is very easy to simply turn it into a revenue device...which is exactly what has happened.
Probably the best safety feature is the 'green-light delay' (I don't know the proper term.) The light turns red and the cross traffic light turns green one to two seconds after. It allows 'late yellow' cars and the occaissional idiot to clear the intersection before cross-traffic starts.
Even better is to synchronize the lights on major streets so that traffic that is going the speed limit can clear a large number of lights in a row. This, in my experience*, cuts down on a lot of problems on busy streets. Nothing creates the frustration that leads to red light running like stopping every quarter mile for a traffic light; you start off from a green only to watch the light just ahead turn red. And then repeat.
Agreed, Mike. Sometimes I swear the traffic engineers in some towns make you go block by block down the main drag so you'll give up, pull into the strip mall, and do some shopping.
The light turns red and the cross traffic light turns green one to two seconds after. It allows 'late yellow' cars and the occaissional idiot to clear the intersection before cross-traffic starts.
That depends on local driver habits. In some areas, the drivers just learn that they have a longer window to squeak by.
*Telegraph Road in Wayne County, Michigan.
Is that road incredible, or what? For all Wayne County's problems, they got that road right. One time I went all the way from down 94 way to way up north towards Farmington Hills (or whatever the suburb is up in there) without a single red light.
If you look at the way Knoxville's red light camera has operated in the past, it is a wonder this has not happened sooner. Consider getting a ticket for $50 in the mail. Your options are to pay the ticket or pay a non-refundable $67.50 to challenge it. Up until recently, even if you won on the appeal it cost you more to appeal than the ticket would have cost. My understanding is that was recently changed after they got sued.
Mike, it's 'all-red' time, and that's the point of it. However, sometimes the knowledge that there is all-red time encourages people to run the red lights. This was observed in Baltimore City, and led to the removing of all-red time at signals within the city.
As for synchronization, it's very difficult to get to work in the way you want. Yes, YOUR street can be synchronized, but that means that streets in the opposite direction cannot, and that cross streets have significant issues. That's for a network of one-way streets. For two-way streets, it's nearly impossible to get meaningful synchronization unless the peak direction travel is so heavy that it's worth the huge wait times introduced on the opposing direction.
For two-way streets, it's nearly impossible to get meaningful synchronization unless the peak direction travel is so heavy that it's worth the huge wait times introduced on the opposing direction.
You pretty much described Telegraph, there.
I've always felt that the ideal of traffic engineering is to annoy all the drivers a little bit, so as not to annoy some drivers a lot -- especially if annoying them a lot will cause them to break the rules in ways that will cause accidents and annoy everybody a lot. Proportional annoyance is probably the trick.
Actually, it's just the result. Engineers love to give everyone what they want. But as in nearly every other part of life, you can't give everyone everything they want all the time. Or even hardly any of the time. So you end up spreading the pain around because it's the only thing that satisfies most of the design requirements.
The 'not annoying them a lot' thing IS part of traffic engineering. You can see it in the eternal struggle about traffic calming. "We want a STOP sign", "We want a traffic light", "We want speed bumps", "We want police enforcement". Every single one of those things has a definite counter-productive effect. Unwarranted STOP signs increase the chances that people will run *any other* STOP signs. Unwarranted traffic lights increase delays for all with almost no benefit except to make people feel better. Speed bumps significantly increase fire truck response time, while having almost no effect on the average speed of the speeders (they go faster in between to make up for the time they lost). Police enforcement makes other roads less safe, because the police are busy.
And red light cameras are the same thing. They could have been such a great tool, but people just didn't understand them. I remember people saying 'If the point is to catch people running red lights, why put signs up warning them?' Because the point isn't to CATCH red light runners. It's to STOP people from running the red light in the first place! And as people have said, it's not the guy who just squeaks through on a stale yellow light that hits and hurts someone. It's the guy who blows through the full-red while traffic is going through the intersection. But the way they used them has annoyed people so much that we applaud guys who vandalize them. And it's sad that it came to that. And I lay 100% of the blame on the greedy twits who used them for revenue.
11.28.2007 3:45pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Gatso Fires! Coming soon to a highway near you!
Before being destroyed by the bullet - what was the last thing the camera saw?
His mug. Right ? Right?
Ha freakin' ha.
There is no civil right to run red lights. But hey, keep laughing about it.
Ha freakin' ha.
And a camera would have done what, exactly?
Why, of course! And he also has the right to face his accuser (as soon as his accuser gets out of the repair shop)!
Should be an interesting cross examination, dontcha think?
Now if he had torched the thing with a Molotov or mixed up a small portion of AMFO and blew it to hell, I would have no compliant and would be buying him a drink.
I'm surprised it didn't mention that the .30-06 is in the same family of cartridges as the 7.62x39, used in AK-47s by
terroristsinsurgents around the world.The .30-06 plays in the same league with 7.62x51 (7.62NATO), 7.92 Mauser, 7.62x54R, and .303 British. It's a battle rifle cartridge.
The article says hunting rifle, which by the standards of journalism could mean practically anything. I hope for Mr. Clark's sake it's not actually a Garand--it would really suck to lose a Garand, even in a good cause.
Finally, I agree with Mordwyn on the violation of Rule 4. Dunno about the serious jail time, although if he'd actually hit something beyond the target that would definitely be on the table. Absent evidence of that, though, serious jail time for a negligent discharge with no additional harm seems excessive.
They didn't let them do it. They had laws preventing it in several states where it happened. They did it anyways, and since They was the government, there were no consequences to Their lawlessness.
It is nice to think that you can protect yourself from the government with a piece of paper and good intentions, but in the real world, it takes a little more that that. (On some dark days, it take a grams of lead.)
Red light cameras are not a bad thing, especially when they're publicized. Put advance warning signs, make the camera installations obvious. Save them for intersections with known problems. Increase clear times.
The biggest problem with them, tho, is that they are not intelligent, and additionally, people don't know the laws. If your rear bumper clears the stop bar while the light is yellow, you are legally in the intersection and have right of way to clear it. But a camera can be set up to make this a violation, which it should not be. And that's what causes the distrust. These systems have been scarred by deliberate misuse by the greedy agencies who use them as a revenue tool, not a safety tool. And like every other blood from a stone revenue tool, they inspire contempt.
So... you pull forward to just behind the huge white line -> you're "In the intersection" and you get a ticket.
a: not shorten the yellow times, and
b: not make the cameras ticket people who 'almost' make it.
c: But if a cop sees you go through the light even a little late, the law remains the same. Just like pre-camera enforcement.
Most fatal red-light running does not take place in the 1-2 seconds after the light changes, but rather when some moron runs them well after. So, focus on the actual safety concern instead of the revenue generator.
I know, enforcing laws with even a grain of honesty or common sense is tough. Doesn't mean we shouldn't demand it.
Even better is to synchronize the lights on major streets so that traffic that is going the speed limit can clear a large number of lights in a row. This, in my experience*, cuts down on a lot of problems on busy streets. Nothing creates the frustration that leads to red light running like stopping every quarter mile for a traffic light; you start off from a green only to watch the light just ahead turn red. And then repeat.
*Telegraph Road in Wayne County, Michigan.
That depends on local driver habits. In some areas, the drivers just learn that they have a longer window to squeak by.
Is that road incredible, or what? For all Wayne County's problems, they got that road right. One time I went all the way from down 94 way to way up north towards Farmington Hills (or whatever the suburb is up in there) without a single red light.
As for synchronization, it's very difficult to get to work in the way you want. Yes, YOUR street can be synchronized, but that means that streets in the opposite direction cannot, and that cross streets have significant issues. That's for a network of one-way streets. For two-way streets, it's nearly impossible to get meaningful synchronization unless the peak direction travel is so heavy that it's worth the huge wait times introduced on the opposing direction.
Traffic engineering is one of the things I really like to do, but don't get too much chance to. And sometimes it feels like this.
You pretty much described Telegraph, there.
I've always felt that the ideal of traffic engineering is to annoy all the drivers a little bit, so as not to annoy some drivers a lot -- especially if annoying them a lot will cause them to break the rules in ways that will cause accidents and annoy everybody a lot. Proportional annoyance is probably the trick.
The 'not annoying them a lot' thing IS part of traffic engineering. You can see it in the eternal struggle about traffic calming. "We want a STOP sign", "We want a traffic light", "We want speed bumps", "We want police enforcement". Every single one of those things has a definite counter-productive effect. Unwarranted STOP signs increase the chances that people will run *any other* STOP signs. Unwarranted traffic lights increase delays for all with almost no benefit except to make people feel better. Speed bumps significantly increase fire truck response time, while having almost no effect on the average speed of the speeders (they go faster in between to make up for the time they lost). Police enforcement makes other roads less safe, because the police are busy.
And red light cameras are the same thing. They could have been such a great tool, but people just didn't understand them. I remember people saying 'If the point is to catch people running red lights, why put signs up warning them?' Because the point isn't to CATCH red light runners. It's to STOP people from running the red light in the first place! And as people have said, it's not the guy who just squeaks through on a stale yellow light that hits and hurts someone. It's the guy who blows through the full-red while traffic is going through the intersection. But the way they used them has annoyed people so much that we applaud guys who vandalize them. And it's sad that it came to that. And I lay 100% of the blame on the greedy twits who used them for revenue.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.