Red Light and Speed Cameras

shadrach · PostJul 26, 2007#762007-07-26T13:29+00:00

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this.

In London, while still red, the yellow lights flash for about 3-4 seconds before it turns green. During that time, waiting cars rev their engines like a drag race and there off the nanosecond it turns green. You don't dare run a light there.

I wished they did that here.

crbswiss · PostJul 26, 2007#772007-07-26T16:20+00:00

^Thats the case all over Europe. The main reason for that was because European countries used to request that drivers turn off their engines at a red light in order to cut exhaust emissions. However, since then sudies have shown that the increased level of emissions when starting a car is more than what would have been saved during the time with the engine off.

However, I do find it to be helpful in that it expidites the departure from a stop. I find it to be more efficient than seeing the green light and only then getting ready to go. I'd estimate that on a busy street during rush hour you can probably get two more cars per lane through the intersection with the "pre-green" yellow light. I expect that this is why they still do this in Europe.

shimmy · PostJul 26, 2007#782007-07-26T16:25+00:00

About the cameras, say if you're from out of state, like Tennessee where you're not required to have a front licenses plate that the camera could take a picture of...then what?

MattnSTL · PostJul 26, 2007#792007-07-26T16:40+00:00

I haven't received a ticket yet, but I believe the picture is taken from the rear.

shadrach · PostJul 26, 2007#802007-07-26T16:43+00:00

^ I don't know but that's almost funny.

hugh ferriss · PostJul 26, 2007#812007-07-26T17:28+00:00

crbswiss wrote:^Thats the case all over Europe. The main reason for that was because European countries used to request that drivers turn off their engines at a red light in order to cut exhaust emissions. However, since then sudies have shown that the increased level of emissions when starting a car is more than what would have been saved during the time with the engine off.

I'm not familiar with the rules in other European countries, but there was never a requirement to turn the engine off at a red light in the UK. As I understand it, the reason for the amber light preceding the green light is because British motorists usually shift into neutral and/or set the parking brake while stopped at a light, so the amber alerts them to release the brake and shift into first gear in anticipation of the green light. There used to be safety warnings directed at "amber gamblers" who would set off through the intersection before the light actually turned green.

crbswiss · PostJul 26, 2007#822007-07-26T17:51+00:00

^You caught me. I know that this was the case in Switzerland and Germany and i believe France. As most all of European countries have the yellow light before green I generalized and assumed it was the case everywhere. Thanks for the clarification. Either way, I still believe that it would be a good implementation in order to move traffic more efficiently.

dweebe · PostJul 26, 2007#832007-07-26T18:39+00:00

What I don't understand is why St. Louis doesn't used red arrows on stoplights when left or right turns are only allowed on green.

publiceye · PostJul 26, 2007#842007-07-26T21:20+00:00

left or right turns are only allowed on green.

I can't think of an intersection in St. Louis that allows left turns on red. As for the intersections that forbid right turns on red, what's wrong with a sign?

thewayofthearch · PostJul 27, 2007#852007-07-27T17:55+00:00

He means "left turn on arrow only." They have tiny signs on the largest intersections, and while I am familiar with them, I know a plethora of people not from the city that seem to have beeen unaware all this time.

"Hey, that was a left on arrow only."

"Really, I didn't see a sign. Shouldn't I have a red or something."

"The sign is way over there on the base of that light pole in your periphery."

"Oh. Thats some poor signage. Why don't they just have red lights until I have an arrow?"

"I don't know."

His suggestion is just that. Instead of hard to read signs, why not let the traffic signals control the traffic. For one unfamiliar with our quirky street system, a green light, while in a turn lane, means yield. And these signs are undersized, especially for being at large intersections like Delmar and Kingshighway, Chestnut and Tucker, Market and Tucker, Market and Jefferson, etc. Especially if one follows traffic. Most go anyway, and you'd never catch the sign with a car in front of you.

dweebe · PostJul 27, 2007#862007-07-27T18:08+00:00

TheWayoftheArch wrote:He means "left turn on arrow only." They have tiny signs on the largest intersections, and while I am familiar with them, I know a plethora of people not from the city that seem to have beeen unaware all this time.

"Hey, that was a left on arrow only."

"Really, I didn't see a sign. Shouldn't I have a red or something."

"The sign is way over there on the base of that light pole in your periphery."

"Oh. Thats some poor signage. Why don't they just have red lights until I have an arrow?"

"I don't know."

His suggestion is just that. Instead of hard to read signs, why not let the traffic signals control the traffic. For one unfamiliar with our quirky street system, a green light, while in a turn lane, means yield. And these signs are undersized, especially for being at large intersections like Delmar and Kingshighway, Chestnut and Tucker, Market and Tucker, Market and Jefferson, etc. Especially if one follows traffic. Most go anyway, and you'd never catch the sign with a car in front of you.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Two major interchanges where you can only make left turns on green arrows are at Skinker/Clayton and Jefferson/Market. Just like "Way" said, instead of the signs the left red arrow reinforces the no-turn allowed and results in a safer intersection.

Nashville and Memphis have a lot of them and they're very helpful to an out-of-towner.

tge-atw · PostJul 27, 2007#872007-07-27T18:33+00:00

I regard "No U Turn" signs as an indicator that I am approaching a particularly good place to make a U Turn.

I regard "Left Only On Arrow" signs as an indicator that there is a reasonable opportunity to turn left approaching.

Both signs are essentially "caution" signs in my book. They indicate that the roads are set up in such a way that a maneuver is very possible, but should be performed with perspicaciousness

Driving requires nuance, judgement, and calculated risk. I like the signs rather than the arrows. I feel like they leave more room for the driver to use his/her judgement than the heavy-handed arrows. In my experience, the police regard them as preferred suggestions rather than hard rules as well. You might get stopped for disregarding a sign; you WILL get stopped for ignoring a light.

dweebe · PostAug 01, 2007#882007-08-01T04:54+00:00

Looks like they're installing them at the Skinker/Clayton intersection. This will generate tons of money for the city.

stlmizzoutiger · PostAug 01, 2007#892007-08-01T16:48+00:00

TGE-ATW wrote:You might get stopped for disregarding a sign; you WILL get stopped for ignoring a light.

I'm not necessarily proud of this, but late last night I ran a red light about 5 seconds after it turned red and there was a St. Louis County Police officer right on my tail at an intersection on 141. I thought for sure I was going to get a ticket but he just sat there at the light behind me. I still don't know how I didn't get caught. The light was a long solid red and I was never close to even getting to the intersection when it was yellow. I guess the cop didn't feel like enforcing the law

I will say that I didn't plan on running the light but I was distracted by another passing vehicle. Luckily no one was crossing the road at the time and it was one of those timed intersections rather than one that changed because traffic was actually waiting to cross. My clean driving record continues!

ntbpo · PostAug 01, 2007#902007-08-01T17:24+00:00

I made a left turn onto wilson off hampton yesterday; the sign said left only on left arrow, I went on a green but with no arrow-can the cameras detect the arrow portion of the signals? Will I get ticketed for this?

10-intuition · PostAug 01, 2007#912007-08-01T18:31+00:00

dweebe wrote:Looks like they're installing them at the Skinker/Clayton intersection. This will generate tons of money for the city.

yep, another why for them to generate more revenue. Its not about safety its about making money for the city.

dweebe · PostAug 01, 2007#922007-08-01T18:37+00:00

10-intuition wrote:
dweebe wrote:Looks like they're installing them at the Skinker/Clayton intersection. This will generate tons of money for the city.

yep, another why for them to generate more revenue. Its not about safety its about making money for the city.

I drive through this intersection almost daily and the number of people that run red lights is amazing. It will only get worse with 40/64 construction.

If they give tickets to everyone who runs a red light, the city will be able to retire the 1% earnings tax, switch all police cars to BMW 530's and pave the streets with gold. Plus the company that issues the tickets and takes a cut will make Halliburton size levels of profit.

moorlander · PostAug 01, 2007#932007-08-01T19:44+00:00

10-intuition wrote:
dweebe wrote:Looks like they're installing them at the Skinker/Clayton intersection. This will generate tons of money for the city.

yep, another why for them to generate more revenue. Its not about safety its about making money for the city.

OMG, are oyu really rolling your eyes at the enforcement of red lights? You're probably right, our elected city officials don't care a lick about the safety of motorists, they're just out to make a buck.

If people are running red lights, then this needs to stop, like yesterday. If two birds can be killed with one stone, then bust the bastards running the lights, and make some money for the city. Seems like a no brainer to me.

It never ceases to amaze how people can twist something so obvious, like the need to enforce the running red lights and turn it into "the city only cares about making money." Am I missing something here?

mill204 · PostAug 01, 2007#942007-08-01T20:26+00:00

^ Nobody in their right mind would say that enforcing red lights is a bad thing. That being said, there are very good reasons for the eye-rolling: 1) red light cameras, while reducing red light running, tend to increase rear end accidents; 2) many times, it is all about the money; 3) corruption because of number 2 - yellows are sometimes shortened.

dweebe · PostAug 01, 2007#952007-08-01T20:39+00:00

Mill204 wrote:^ Nobody in their right mind would say that enforcing red lights is a bad thing. That being said, there are very good reasons for the eye-rolling: 1) red light cameras, while reducing red light running, tend to increase rear end accidents; 2) many times, it is all about the money; 3) corruption because of number 2 - yellows are sometimes shortened.

That plus the whole Big Brother thing. Like how the dashboard cameras in police cars and being modified to read the license plate of every car it passes. If a car passes that has a warrant tied to the plate, the officer is notified and they can pull them over.

It's a very slippery slope.

Look: I've been hit twice by people who have run red lights and my dad's business partner/best friend was killed by a guy running a red light, so I perfectly well want the rules enforced. Just the fact the the red light cameras are run for a profit and owned by a private company out of Dallas, it makes me uneasy.

moorlander · PostAug 01, 2007#962007-08-01T20:59+00:00

^ indeed indeed, just seems like people complain about EVERYTHING...

shinpickle · PostAug 02, 2007#972007-08-02T03:48+00:00

^ I've seen even the city police sometimes run the reds when they're just driving .. and they will rarely pull over someone for running one. they will tell you they have better things to do.

"I'm all for getting our lights timed & synced, getting the lanes properly marked, removing obsolete restriction signage, bogus 1-way streets, insane 6-way intersections, endless grids of 4-way stops .. and then cameras & zero tolerance"

what you cease to understand, since you don't live with 60+ year old obsolete infrastructure, is that the lights and the traffic systems are a total ***** joke, that even the cops don't respect.

so it seems to the people who have to live with these cameras daily, a huge slap in the face, to install cameras and go zero-tolerance, instead of fixing the root problems.

shimmy · PostAug 02, 2007#982007-08-02T04:18+00:00

^Well, to be fair, sometimes cops don't turn on their sirens or flash lights in case they are trying to sneak up on someboday.

10-intuition · PostAug 02, 2007#992007-08-02T06:05+00:00

Mill204 wrote:^ Nobody in their right mind would say that enforcing red lights is a bad thing. That being said, there are very good reasons for the eye-rolling: 1) red light cameras, while reducing red light running, tend to increase rear end accidents; 2) many times, it is all about the money; 3) corruption because of number 2 - yellows are sometimes shortened.

I had a rear end accident a couple years ago because of these cameras in Virginia, the light suddenly turned yellow as I approached the intersection, no way I could run it and avoid the red. I slammed on the brakes and stopped right at the line, but this 2003 Honda Accord EX slams my 1996 Infiniti I30 really hard, causing over $5000 worth of damage and gave me whiplash. The person in the Accord thought I was gonna run it, but I told him I ain't gonna get a ticket for that.

IMO its all about collecting revenue. The don't want to waste LEOs time with pulling people over for running reds. Apparently, they have better things to do. Yet LEOs can run them and not get into trouble.

I use that Clayton-Skinker intersection quite often driving in that area to see friends who live there. Now I will know to be extra cautious there with these revenue collecting devices placed there.

tge-atw · PostAug 02, 2007#1002007-08-02T15:48+00:00

We need one of the map gurus that hangs out around here to make a red-light map of the city. sh*t, I'd even buy one and I bet a lot of other people would too. Any entrepreneurs out there? I figure the cameras aren't going away, no matter how blatantly they extort us. So, lets avail ourselves of other options. My girlfriend got a $100 ticket the other day for rolling a right turn on red. Total BS, but b*tching isn't going to get her 100 bucks back. There are plenty of technologies out there for beating these things. And they are often cheaper than a single ticket. I posted a link to one earlier in the thread. If anybody is worried about the city extorting their money through cameras, just beat them with technology and go about your traffic-signal-violating business. Map map map map map. [-o<

Red Light and Speed Cameras

Choose Display Mode