As I've mentioned before, if you install all the engineering solutions, no company in its right mind would pay out of its pocket to install the cameras as is happening in most cities. Cameras give cities incentives to MAXIMIZE red light running to boost revenue. So you can say do both, but no one does and it's not economically feasible for the camera operators to do so.

Also, you can say you don't think people are guessing when the light will change, and maybe you don't, but all the transportation research contradicts your view. That's why researchers at A&M found a 40% decrease in red light running just by increasing yellow light times one second. Countdown timers virtually eliminate all but actually intentional red light running. Welcome back, btw.

A bigger problem is some confusion about what you're supposed to do. When I learned to drive, I was taught that a yellow light meant that you should stop if it was possible in the distance between you and the light. What most of us actually do is go if we think we can make it. And, in reality, most drivers are including the first second or two red in the "if I can make it" interval.

Obviously, yellow lights have to be timed correctly, so that at the posted speed limit, it allows someone closer than the stopping distance at the speed limit to get through it before it turns red. Of course, if someone is driving 10 mph over the limit, they won't be able to stop even if they're at that distance (because their stopping distance is longer).

Funny thing is, I almost never encounter yellow lights that are clearly too short.

Which is why I'm ultimately highly unsympathetic to people who "misjudge." Seems to me in the majority of cases, the "misjudgment" is speeding and not stopping if they can. It's hard to argue that a ticket is unfair in that case.

I think Helwig is far more lenient on red light runners than I would be.

True, but you may not be the "average" driver. Your intelligence alone places you at least several standard deviations above the average. I'm not saying I necessarily buy into the argument, though.

As for the revenue argument -- I would hope you'd at least be concerned about the incentive for the companies operating the cameras to tweak the red light times, an incentive directly related to "the revenue argument." We all know that Houston's way of doing both political and commercial "bidness" sometimes isn't as transparent as we'd like. :)

"I very seldom find myself in a position where I'm not sure whether I should brake or accelerate when a light turns yellow." You just said a mouthfull. How often is seldom? And do you want to risk $75 for the privalage of not being sure? Big brothers Bill White and Harold Hurtt think it's your fault for being uncertain. Multiply that uncertainty by the number of drivers in Houston and we've got ourselves a very subtle and profitable entrapment scam.

I am a traffic engineer and am convinced that the cameras are primarily about money.

Cameras were supposed to be a last ditch effort after significant enforcement and engineering improvements at the intersection. They have become the first effort to combat RLR at an intersection for many cities.

A common argument is that officer enforcement is unsafe. Yet very rarely has the City installed enforcement lamps to facilitate one officer enforcement in a safe manner. It is a 150 dollar improvement that allows an officer to not have to chase a violator through the intersection, yet it is rarely used in some areas.

I can point to numerous cameras that are at locations without significant crash problems (as defined by crash rates, not frequency), cameras at intersections that are extremely congested. Raw # of RLR Violations are directly related to the volume to capacity ratio of the approach volumes.

Most violations occur during the first 1-2 seconds of red, most crashes occur after 6 seconds of red.

The federal highway administration has stated that camera enforcement should not be used during the all-red portion of the signal phase. This is usually a 0.5 to 2 second period after the yellow change interval. This time varies by location and in many places may actually be set to 0.

Contrary to popular belief there is no formally recognized recommended formula for setting yellow times. There is a formula promoted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers that is for the Change Period (Yellow + All Red) and any folks use the common convention that the reaction time + first term of the equation = yellow and then the second term = all red. However this is not always the case.

Yellows are also frequently set based on the posted speed, even in locations where the engineers and cops know that the majority of drivers are exceeding the speed limit. This has the effect of creating a yellow that is too short.

My biggest beef with the rush to camera enforcement is that in most instances, the traffic engineers and law enforcement have NOT worked together to develop other solutions before implementing cameras first.

Van Der Grinten's comments also suggest that we add an orange light between the yellow and red light with appropropate justifications for interpretation, similar to the Christmas Tree at the drag strip.

I've posted about this before, too:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000361.html

I'm a bit mystified at Scott (grits)' refusal to take seriously the argument that there's some inherent value in ticketing people who decide, ON PURPOSE, to run red lights. He in turn is seemingly mystified by my desire to do so. I don't know how to bridge that divide, and I get the sense you're more on my side than his...

I suspect one's position on this stems from where one lives (or learned to drive). In South Florida, it got so bad that the "engineering solution" had migrated to an all-red cycle of two or more seconds. That means the capacity of the intersection was being drastically degraded for the benefit of red-light runners (who, again, were doing so obviously on purpose).

That's what will happen if you lengthen yellows instead of ticketing the bad drivers, folks. Those willfully bad drivers will just push that envelope further out.

Hi M1EK! :)

Mike and I have been around about this quite a bit before. Needless to say he thinks red light runners are all evil-doers who need punishment. To me, when engineering solutions work as well or better to reduce accidents, and they do, there's no need to resort to criminal (on in the cameras case civil) penalties. Best,

Yeah GritsforBreakfast!

Grits,

There you go again.

I believe that citing red light runners leads to less red light running than the engineering solutions will. (The engineering solutions have been in place for a decade or two in South Florida, and all that happened is that the purposeful red-light runners - the majority - run even farther after their light turns red because they've learned that there's a 2 or 3 second all-red cycle).

M1EK,

The all-red portion of the signal phase is not frequently used as an engineering solution to reduce red-light running.

An overly long all-red can (and does) reduce angle crashes at some locations. An overly long all-red at an oversaturated intersection can induce more red light running because of its impact on capacity and motorist expectation.

Trafficnerd,

South Florida's traffic engineers first tried longer and longer yellow cycles. Didn't work; the people who were running red lights ON PURPOSE figured it out and adjusted accordingly.

Charles, can we persuade you to now include red light cameras on your index? There's lots of good stuff here.

M1EK,

Where is your evidence of the South Florida Traffic Engineers and increased red light running with longer yellows?

I'm studying to be a traffic engineer,and never heard any of this.

"Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the
length of the yellow."
Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE,
1985

The Texas Transportation Institute reported in 2004 that their research showed
that when the yellow change interval was 1 second above ITE minimum reduced red
light violations violations by 53%. When the Yellow Change interval was 1
second below ITE minimum red light violations jumped 110%. They also reported
that increasing the yellow interval 1 second above ITE minimum yielded a 40
percent reduction in red light running crashes.

Richard Retting et. el reported in 1998 that almost 80% of red light entries
occured on the first second of red at the intersection he studied.

"Increases in the length of the yellow signal toward values associated with the
ITE-proposed recommended practice significantly decreased the chance of
red-light running. (Page 2.)"
Richard Retting

The Office of the House Majority leader reported in 2001 that "Today's formula
for calculating yellow times yields yellow times that can in some cases be
about 30 percent shorter than the older formula." The older formula being
calculated from the 1976 ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook

rte,

It's anectdotal experience from growing up there - a long time ago by now; but the all-red cycles were, in fact, promoted as an effort to finally get the red-light runners to stop causing bad accidents (after trying for years to 'solve' it with other engineering solutions).

Pre-WWW, though; so there's no chance of finding a citation - you're just going to have to trust me on this one.

Oh, and the problem wasn't "and increased red light running with longer yellows?", the problem was that drivers DID adjust to the longer yellows and CONTINUED running red lights (after an adjustment period). As with Kuff, I'm less than impressed with the statistic that most runners do so in the first second after it turns red - big whoop; they're mostly still doing it on purpose, and they can therefore just as easily do it on purpose after an even longer yellow.

M1EK,

Your letting your biases and experiences dictate your answer, and then seek to protect your hypothesis.

All-red was not an answer to red-light running problem.

All-red is an optional interval used by an engineer to clear the intersection with vehicles who have legally entered the intersection.

Controlled scientific studies seem to prove your anecdotal evidence as incorrect.

Research has consistently shown that drivers do not habituate to the duration
of the Yellow Clearance/Change Interval.

"Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the
length of the yellow."
Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE,
1985

"It has frequency been claimed that if the yellow is "too long", more drivers
will use part of the yellow as green. More drivers - it was argued - would
cross after the yellow onset with long [RATHER] than with short
yellow."........"The data show that the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles
clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not
appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase." ["The Influence of
the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on Driver Response",
Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
November 1980, page 27]

"The percentages of these vehicles, that is of vehicles that could have been
involved in a conflict with cross-street traffic, were substantially smaller at
both sites and under all conditions after the yellow duration was extended. No
evidence was found at either site, under any of the conditions, that the
vehicles that were in potential conflict with cross-street traffic with the
extended yellow would have cleared the intersection earlier in the cycle if the
yellow had not been extended. Thus, the extensions of yellow duration employed
in this study substantially reduced the frequency of potential intersection
conflicts." ["The Influence of the Time Duration of Yellow Traffic Signals on
Driver Response", Stimpson/Zador/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, November 1980, page 28]

Also something else,

In the vast majority of states, the yellow signal serves as a warning signal.

You do not have to stop for yellow, and it is legal to enter the intersection so long as it is yellow.

Legally Red is the indication that means STOP.

The problem is that when the Yellow light is too short, a motorist will find themselves in an awkward position at a certain region of the intersection.

If you brake abruptly you risk getting rear-ended, if you continue at the same speed,you risk running a red light, and if you gun-it you risk rear-ending someone.

I have been in that situation,and at an improperly timed intersection it is not pretty.

The options a motorists faces in this situation are limited and unsafe.

However, a good engineer will correct the yellow timing so as that a motorist will never face that impossible choice of whether to stop or go.

rte,

No, the (quite long) all-red was an effort to clear people who were purposefully running the red (typically, on left-turns at least, as many as four or five cars would BEGIN their turn after their light turned red).

Again, I was there; I lived through the change; I read about it in the newspaper and watched it on TV. It wasn't me 'assuming'; that was, in fact, the publically stated reason for the change.

As for the legal implications of yellow - this may vary from state to state; but we were all TAUGHT "yellow means stop if you can safely do so; otherwise proceed".

Well those scientific studies prove you incorrect.

Who is going to school to become a traffic engineer?

The purpose of all-red is as a clearance interval.

"The primary measure of effectiveness for the yellow interval is the percent of
vehicles entering the intersection after the termination of the yellow
indication; that is, during the red following the yellow." ...... "When the
percent of vehicles that are last through the intersection which enter on red
exceeds that which is locally acceptable (many agencies use a value of one to
three percent), the yellow interval should be lengthened until the percentage
conforms to local standards." ["Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A
Proposed Recommended Practice", Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Washington, D.C., 1985, page 6]

Well in Florida, where you speak of, it is legal to enter an intersection on yellow.

It is DANGEROUS to jam brakes for yellow, that is why I proceed.

I had a friend the other day who jammed her brakes at a red light camera intersection, and see get slammed and injured pretty badly.

Only two states have restrictions on yellow, but they are practically unenforceable. That is Michigan, and Virginia.

Florida Statues:

316.075 Traffic control signal devices.--

(b) Steady yellow indication.--

1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection.

2. Pedestrians facing a steady yellow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in s. 316.0755, are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway.

The defensive driving instructors are wrong in teaching to stop for yellow at all cost.

I used to jam, until I realized how dangerous it was to do that.

I stop if I can safely, but if I can't,like I'm being tail-gated I go.

If the light is improperly timed that might mean clipping the light by a fraction of a second to a second, but it is better than getting mangled up from behind by stopping at all cost.

By the way, how would extending red prevent red light running?

It is unintelligent to say that all-red would stop red light running. As one can not legally enter the intersection at that time.

So the Florida traffic engineers did not want to stop red light running, as all-red would not do that.

Also another one, it is not illegal to be in an intersection on RED.

It is illegal to enter an intersection on RED.

Don't mistake people legally in the intersection on RED for red light runners.

rte,

When you post five or six times in a row like that, it looks less like counterargument and more like "shouting down".

Again, in South Florida, the typical activity at the end of a green left arrow cycle is: arrow turns yellow, people keep going. Arrow turns red; up to four or five more cars ENTER THE INTERSECTION AFTER IT TURNS RED.

That's why they had to go to a fairly long all-red. Not because of people honestly entering on yellow who thought they could make it, or thought they couldn't safely stop in time.

That sounds like an issue of congestion, the engineers need to tweak that turn arrow timing a bit instead of just adding all-red. That sound solve most of the issue.

Instead of posting one gigantic post,I just posted a number of small ones. Whats the problem, and the difference? They all contain solid evidence of a point.

"That sounds like an issue of congestion,"

Yes. And there's no way to solve the congestion when you're talking about two roads, one with six through lanes and the other with eight through lanes; each with two left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane. Make the roads even wider? Sure.

It's the old "suburban sprawl doesn't scale" problem - and at this point, nothing but enforcing the law against red-light runners will stop the wrecks.

Again, these people are CHOOSING TO RUN THE RED LIGHT AND PUT OTHER PEOPLE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK BY DOING SO.

I completely understand the efficiency arguments. I'm an engineer myself. But lay off; there are a hell of a lot of people running red lights who are doing so because they know it will save them time; and the most efficient intersection in the world _still_ provides opportunities like that for people willing to put others at risk.

M1EK your a transportation engineer? You ought read the ITE's "Tricks of the Trade". They have all kinds of solutions to congestion problems.

Red light running is a problem, but so are many other things. Its not our job, as engineers, to pad the towns budget, or to go out an apprehend violators. Were not cops. Our job is to apply our knowledge to make intersections safer.

If an intersection has a red light running problem, and it it is not because of an engineering issue, than coordinate with law enforcement.

What do you define as red light running?

Most Americans could not define the illegal act of red light running correctly.