Agree with all the above except the red light camera thing. Running red lights has a non-zero risk of killing someone and while I can construct a scenario where my bad parking kills someone, its pretty unlikely.
San Diego recently removed their cameras because they found that they were put at intersections designed to maximize revenue, regardless of the pre-RLC safety.
The problem with red light cameras that the OP is referring to is the fact that red-light cameras aren't pointed at the straight-through lanes, where running a red light would potentially cause a fatal T-bone accident. Instead, they're pointed at right turn lanes, where they're more likely to make money from people who didn't stop 100% when performing a right-on-red.
Ahh, my country doesn't allow this. Red means don't go, always. I haven't noticed cameras pointing anywhere other than mid-intersection to catch straight through offenses.
> Running red lights has a non-zero risk of killing someone and while I can construct a scenario where my bad parking kills someone, its pretty unlikely.
Most of the folks getting red light tickets are getting them from rolling forwards at 1mph while they look for oncoming traffic, though.
I'm not sure about that, but there have been complaints in some jurisdictions that it creates an incentive to shorten yellow lights, thus catching people who barely missed getting through the intersection in time. To me, just missing a yellow light feels like a far less serious crime than blowing a light that has been red for a while, but I guess the real issue there is the yellow light is timed incorrectly.
I agree that it adds an incentive, but I don't think it's literally the only way to make them profitable. And not every city necessarily cares that they are profitable.
In Northern VA they increased the yellow light time on intersections with red light cameras specifically because they only want to catch "genuine" red light runners.
It all depends. What if it's three o'clock in the morning and you've been waiting at a light for five minutes and its not turning and you can see that no one's coming in the other direction?
As a cyclist, though, sometimes the light will never turn. Most states treat bicycles identically to cars as far as red lights go. So, sorry, but I'm not going to wait at a red light for 45 minutes when it's freezing out for a car to show up and switch the light for me.
I used to do that. It gets old really fast. If you want to make a left-hand turn, you have to bike over to the crosswalk, press the button, wait thirty seconds for the light to change, walk across, (another thirty seconds on a wide street), press the crosswalk button again, wait another thirty seconds, walk across the street again (another thirty seconds). If you have a few red lights on your way home that can easily add ten minutes to your travel time. At a certain point common sense trumps obeying every technicality of the law.
In some locations, there are exceptions for cyclists at lights which "never turn." In Virginia, since July 2011, it's two minutes or two cycles of the light § 46.2-833 B:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a driver of a motorcycle or moped or a bicycle rider approaches an intersection that is controlled by a traffic light, the driver or rider may proceed through the intersection on a steady red light only if the driver or rider (i) comes to a full and complete stop at the intersection for two complete cycles of the traffic light or for two minutes, whichever is shorter, (ii) exercises due care as provided by law, (iii) otherwise treats the traffic control device as a stop sign, (iv) determines that it is safe to proceed, and (v) yields the right of way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction. "
How would the red-light camera affect you as a cyclist, anyway? Bicycles don't have license details affixed to them, and also shouldn't trigger the camera for exactly the same reason they won't trigger the light-change cycle.
>and also shouldn't trigger the camera for exactly the same reason they won't trigger the light-change cycle.
I have a similar problem on my motorcycle. There are many lights which are not triggered by my being there. But the camera's always know. I wish they used the same loop / detector!
That'd be a pretty easy ticket to beat. Telling the cop it's a sensor light you can't trigger is going to work on any reasonable officer, and if not it's going to be pretty easy to contest in traffic court.
I'm skeptical that there are very many lights that would take more than a few minutes to change even without a car.
Maybe cyclists should just be allowed to proceed through a red light since they are unlikely to hurt anyone besides themselves... But the rule does kinda make sense. If there are lights that rely on car sensors then obviously fixing that would be the right thing to do regardless of the law.
At least on my ride home some of the lights default to remaining green along the major street unless a car trips the sensor on the intersecting street. Unless a car comes along it will never change.
There's a couple in my area, so they can't be that rare. They're on arterial roads with small side-streets or shopping center exits, and after a certain hour at night, the signal never cycles unless a car trips the sensor on the smaller road.
Car sensors aren't infallible, even for cars. Last week, after (presumably related) heavy snow, I found a "delayed signal" that wouldn't turn green for in the delayed direction for my Honda Civic.
TL;DR - One particular city stopped issuing violations when the camera caught someone turning right on red with a 'rolling stop' because those don't really affect accident rate, revenue drops by 90%, the maker of the cameras sues the city. In other words, abject evidence that the makers and marketers of these cameras only care about revenue.
In which case someone running red lights should have their license to drive revoked to a certain extent, e.g. "run three red lights and you will lose your privilege to drive for five years." or something like that.
This will go far more towards curtailing people running red lights than the existing "pay $100 and go consequence-free" system.
Running a red light is a moving violation that will result in points on your license and eventually the suspension of your license in many (most?) states.
A lot of states differ on this; and I know a couple definitely have ways to get out of the points, essentially by paying money ("take this 'safe driving course'", etc.) I'm sure some states are stricter than others though.
At least in NY, you can only get rid of 4 points with the course and you can only take the course so often. If you're committing enough offenses to be in danger of losing your license, it ain't really gonna help much.
