BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

@Rubberfactory. ... enforceable speed limit...

I have not seen a speeding ticket issued in Pittsburgh in this century.

Spring Way gives me the heebie-jeebies on a dry day in July. Between the glass shards, busted what-might-once-have-been-pavement, and the longitudinal drain grates (too many to count), as well as nailing pedestrians and being nailed by cross traffic at every street, I don't see how this is any better than Smallman, when all is said and done.

Get in their way. I have never been passed on Spring Way because when I am not avoiding pot holes and delivery trucks, I am in the middle of the alley.

Railroad.

Ride farther left.

With all of the hazards on Spring Way, glass, terrible pavement, delvery trucks, etc., and the fact that there is an intersection at every block that intersecting traffic is not required to stop at, in my opinion it's a terrible choice of a route through the strip. Even in the summer on a blue sky day during rush hour your much safer on Smallman.

Sassafras Street.

I avoid smallman like the plague ever since I tried to enter traffic, but couldn't because the traffic was moving like this:

I wish I was kidding.

As for railroad, is that the alley between smallman/penn? I'm not sure that extends as far as I need it to.

Also, right now, I have to ride in tire tracks left by cars in order to not slip around.

Mick - I heard back in the 90's (early? mid?) that as a cost savings measure, city police were no longer paid to go to traffic court. Thus all you had to do was fight any traffic ticket (and for the court fee) you are free. Thus they stopped actually issuing traffic tickets of all kinds. (independent of parking tickets, which rake in tons of dough for Parking Authority)

This is all hearsay, and most likely inaccurate, but the fact that I've been repeating it most of my life and never heard anybody ever contradict it either with their own hearsay or first hand information makes me think it might have a grain of truth. Either that or I really do sound more confident than I am. Or crazy. Whichever.

Cameras, automatic ticket writing/mailing software. *flash* - thank you, come again!

RF, now that I know where you are, I'd second the suggestion for Sassafras Street. It's between Liberty and the railroad tracks, accessed from (I think) about 21st Street. You can get much of the way eastward to about 30th Street by staying between the buildings and the railroad tracks.

I was only on it once, at night, going westward, and missed the turn back out onto Liberty, ending up very lost, apologetically asking some nice Amtrak folks if they would pretty please direct me streetward without giving me a hard time (which they did, thru the station).

If you get up onto Sassafras down in 21st-ville, you shouldn't run into any Amtrak folks. West of 21st, mmmm, not so sure. What I don't know is whether you might run into a closed gate or fenced-off area. I remember running into that just trying to get to Sassafras from the east end. Much of this is loading areas for the various buildings along Liberty, so chances are pretty good you might encounter slow-moving 18-wheelers, depending on time of day.

You will end up near that bridge over Liberty by 32nd Street, and I think you can figure out how to get home from there.

EDIT: This post from a few months ago has all the requisite details.

"Cameras, automatic ticket writing/mailing software. *flash* - thank you, come again! "

No. Way. So against this stuff. It's simply not fair, and in my mind goes around much of the due process guaranteed in this country.

All for cops busting speeders and folk running redlights, not into cameras and computers doing it.

What is not fair about computers and cameras issuing tickets?

It seems much more likely to be fair in that computers and cameras have no social biases and the issuing of tickets is far less random

From a practical perspective, people may be willing to pay a few bucks for the privilege of not having to stop. Nice thing about being physically pulled over is the inconvenience/embarrassment factor.

I want the ticketing process to involve as much inconvenience as possible...efficiency is NOT a benefit there.

Railroad Street is the one past Smallman, closer to the river. The road surface is not so great, but there's significantly less traffic than Smallman (it doesn't go anywhere, it's just access to businesses). Coming from the east you get to it by way of the street under the 31st St. Bridge (which, uh, is 31st St...). This will get you as far as 21st.

I tend to avoid it due to the surface (even less attractive after they repaved Smallman). It also feels really isolated.

RE ignoring stops and speeding because you figure you can amortize the cost: Some of these infractions entail points. Accumulate enough and you lose your license (and the insurance company flags you as a risk).

Besides, these behaviors suck if you happen to be cycling on the same street.

@ewjme I heard back in the 90's (early? mid?) that as a cost savings measure, city police were no longer paid to go to traffic court

I don't know the detail, but the timing seems right.

Late 80's early 90's occasional speed traps in Schenley Park, On Shady. On Carson.

21st century? Nada.

You can get to the Sassafras Street/parking lot bypass by going up that ramp at 17th and Liberty. You go through some rough-ish areas but nothing insurmountable. I do it all the time on my road bike

The surface of Railroad used to be bad, it's not as bad anymore.

@ RF, I'm going to (sort of shock myself and) speak in favor of Smallman. I ride it every day during rush hour, and it's not as bad as I initially thought. It's usually backed up only until 24th, and then traffic moves freely. And there's always a decent shoulder. I don't love the huge trucks that sometimes pass me, but I think Smallman's still a really good option. You might want to give it another try sometime.

Smallman has improved since it was paved, but I still always take Railroad on my lunch runs back to the office. I run into maybe one or two cars or trucks and can take my time and enjoy the ride.

BradQ - nothing about the cameras and computers eliminates due process. You can still fight the ticket in court, get them to check the callibration records, point out that there was an accident and you didn't run the red light instead you weren't moving at all, etc. It just eliminates having to pay an officer to sit and wait for people to break the law in a location where (previously) people habitually broke the law in a manner that is easy to automate control over.

In my head, I compare the traffic in two cities that have horrid downtown rush hours. Baltimore (late 90's), where if the person in front of you ran the light, you did too - mass chaos, pedestrians couldn't go through because at any given time cars would be stopped on green or zooming on red (or both), chaos, gridlock, accidents and yuck. Like worse than I'd seen in Pgh. Other hand - Vancouver after 2005ish, with cameras at most traffic lights. Gridlock, yes. Running lights? no. Pedestrians knew green was safe to go. Cars knew green was safe to go (assuming traffic wasn't stopped in front of you). I'm sure they have crashes, but the levels of chaos were not mind boggling like Baltimore. Because people had been trained that being in an intersection when your light is red results in a hit to the pocket book, period. Higher risk of accident, maiming, personal and vehicular damage didn't do it. Flat out money cost garunteed took care of the problem. But you're still welcome to try and fight it in court.

Anecdote (ok, I may be repeating my stories here, sorry if so) - first speeder ever caught in the provence of BC by a camera and processed by their automated system was.... the legistlative official who pushed the bill approving and funding it through. He was a good sport, and responded with something like "see, it really does work".

i used to see speed traps at the bottom of the hill on forbes by margaret morrison, back when i was in school in the late 90s, early 2000s. dunno if they still do that, though.

In my experience red light cameras caused a lot of people to slam on the brakes when the light turned yellow and rear end collisions became a daily occurrence. I don't know how much money they saved by dispatching the amberlamps and cops every time that happened.

California also has these scary looking red signs that say "PHOTO ENFORCED - RED LIGHT VIOLATION $370.00 FINE". Though, I remember the fine being well into the $430+ range last I was there. To me, that seems like an unnecessary distraction right before they fly into an intersection, a place where a driver should be most alert.

I have an aversion to automated law enforcement on general principles.

I don't like the idea of the federal gov't scanning my email to look for terroristicated content, I don't like the idea of the Commonwealth monitoring my online purchases so they can hit me up for the sales tax I'm dodging, and I don't like the idea of cameras being used to monitor my on-road behavior regardless of what form of transport I'm using.

From a practical perspective with regards to the cameras, I have no idea how well those cameras work to reduce running of lights, although I'd bet they do help in that regard. However, I suspect they will encourage FASTER driving between lights, in an attempt to beat the timing.

I also have an aversion to automated law enforcement and attempts to make law enforcement more "efficient".

OTOH, I was in a car accident with a guy who ran the red light and then denied it to his insurance co, so a camera would have been handy there.

On the gripping hand, we should not have to choose between either automated law enforcement or no law at all.

Great points, ejwme.

I hadn't thought of those. I love that the person who brought the bill was the first caught under it.

If enforcement of any variety - by cops or cameras - will make the city safer and earn some much needed revenue, I'm for it.

But the cameras seem in this case to make more sense. They get everyone, and it doesn't require an officer to be at every spot and required to confront every person speeding or running a redlight, or allow them to give tickets to some people and not others.

This would be uncomfortable, especially at the beginning while trying to change

behaviors. There will likely be confrontations and some people will get pulled over more than others.

There's that campaign by Warren Buffet and other exceedingly rich people to say "tax us more!".

Maybe some of the people that drive cars here (85% of Bike Pittsburgh members own cars) could say "We drive and we live here. We want safer streets and want to see enforcement of traffic laws."

@dan - I think the idea is, when you're sitting there thinking "uh, I should have run that light", you see the sign and think twice... BTW, in Mt. View/Palo Alto they all say "$281 MINIMUM" which always struck me as odd.

I hate the idea of cameras, I like what Lyle said - it shouldn't be a choice between cameras or nothing.

Apparently someone has been writing tickets at least somewhat recently, but apparently they f*d it all up...

http://www.wtae.com/news/15887498/detail.html

Y'know what would be fascinating would be a study of the characteristics of the population of red-light runners as identified by camera, compared to the population of red-light runners as ticketed by human police officers.

It would be interesting to see if there were any significant differences.

Another thought on the automated vs manual enforcement issue for the civil libertarians out there. If you are ticketed by a red-light camera, all you get is a ticket for running a red light. If you are stopped by a police officer, you car may be searched, you may be required to submit to various alcohol or drug tests, and if you're very unlikely, you might have one big guy sitting on your chest while another one compresses your windpipe with a stick -- if you are unfortunate enough to be DWB in Brentwood.

(now, of course, if the police pulled someone over for running a red light and DIDN'T act on the other issues and the driver then went on to commit some serious crime, there'd be hell to pay, so they're kind of in a no-win situation )

...for those who came in late...

@ reddan I don't like the idea of the federal gov't scanning my email to look for terroristicated content,

But...

But...

How is our government going to protect us from evil-doers who would crush our commonwealths?

How is our government going to protect us from evil-doers who would crush our commonwealths?

They can bloody well wait until I'm in the process of doing evil. IMO.

No-one's paranoia, justified or otherwise, is worth treating me as guilty until proven innocent.

While Vancouver's reaction to red light cameras is what one would hope for, I fear it is not the norm. All the other examples I have been able to find show an increase in rear-end collisions.

The statistic I haven't seen is whether there is a decrease in pedestrian injuries. If there is such a decrease then I would support the cameras even with an increase in fender benders and people's health and safety is more valuable than car bumpers. But, if it doesn't make people safer on the street and the evidence already shows that it increases rear-end collisions then it is only a revenue generator for the city at the cost of people's bumpers and insurance premiums and that is not an acceptable use.

When I lived in Texas (very briefly thank god) in the late 80’s the speed limit cameras were just being deployed. The camera took a picture of both the front and back of the car so you could get both the license plate and who was driving. One of the unintended consequences of this auto-policing was that it caught a lot of spouses driving with non-spouses in the passenger seat. Talk about Libertarian outrages after ‘that’ happened a few times. Open container laws? – nah, we don’t need them. Send photo of you out and about with some blond home to the wife? – Outrageous!! This has to be stopped!

on a yellow light, I was always taught you should slow down if you can do so safely (i.e. no slamming of breaks). Most yellows are timed such that if you're going at or under the speed limit, and see it turn from green, flip a coin and your behavior is safe and legal. If you never saw the green, it's dumb to try and accelerate through it, and if you saw the green but can't stop in time, you weren't going slow enough for driving conditions to begin with (lights are driving conditions too).

If the person in front of you stops suddenly at a yellow and you can't stop in time either you weren't paying attention, following too closely, or going too fast. All of which have common sense remedies that result in... calmer traffic.

All the cameras do is remove the god given right for citizens to break the law and have a chance to not get caught. They don't force drivers to run red lights. They can be timed to not bother with "pink" light runners. They can even cut breaks to non-local plates (I'm still waiting for the 2009 flash that happened on a fast yellow - I think the good city of Vancouver forgave me, though they definitely caught me in my rental). The pictures can even be designed to black out any passengers in the car to avoid that issue(you loan your car to your crap driver mistress in a city with cameras at lights you're an idiot anyway).

Or should the laws only apply when a police officer is watching?

Automated systems such as cameras can do one thing and one thing only.

Actual law enforcement personnel can do many different things. I'm willing to trade efficiency for flexibility in this case.

I'd far rather spend money on additional cops (and, I dunno, actually direct them to start ticketing people again...make sure to take their good sweet time about writing it, so Joe Aggro is made to run really late...) than cameras hooked to data centers.

Or should the laws only apply when a police officer is watching?

Do we want to encourage the belief that laws only apply if there is a prospect of punishment?

That's the problem though. Citizens hate taxes and taxes are required to pay for a bigger police force so what we end up with are overworked cops too busy to pull someone over for running a red light.

The cameras remove the human judgement from things. Not every time you are caught in your car in an intersection with the light red warrants a ticket. You're going along just fine, the person in front of you stops without signaling to make a left, stranding you in the intersection until after the light turns red... meaning you now get a ticket. Move out of the way for an ambulance and inch past the white line? Ticket. Pull up too far to see around a parked car? Ticket. There are too many real life scenarios that cameras and computers are too on/off to be able to distinguish.

The following too closely thing also is bunk. Ever try to drive in a congested city with proper spacing between cars? Two or three people will pull into that space, it just happens, and is again no reason to give someone a ticket. A human can see the differences in these scenarios, but a camera can't.

And shouldn't the driver of a car get a ticket for an infraction, not the owner? A camera can only tell who the owner is.

And shouldn't the driver of a car get a ticket for an infraction, not the owner? A camera can only tell who the owner is.

Heh...I had thought of that too, but only in the "I don't mind if the onus is on the owner to ensure that operators are law-abiding" sense.

Now, I'm thinking some teenager, pissed at parents, goes out and runs every red light (s)he can find for a couple of hours.

I can say that I have driven and walked in both Baltimore and Vancouver and the experience was vastly better in one more so than the other.

Someone made the point above that when a real live human police officer pulls someone over for speeding or running a light, it gives that officer the opportunity to make further observtions: does the driver appear to be under the influence (are they drunk/on drugs); is the driver excessively evasive (are they fleeing the scene of a crime); is the passenger bleeding (were they just punched in the face by the driver); etc., etc. The computer/camera thingy doesn't get any of those drivers off the road, which makes us all less safe.

reddan - that teenager is going to get consequences for that action, in some form, and the parents are legally responsible for any under-18's behavior anyway, aren't they? (unless tried as an adult, which I'm not sure would apply to traffic crimes). And traffic cameras would not stop a police officer from noticing the little jerk and pulling them over for wreckless driving.

Most places I've heard of using these systems just hook them up to DMV and visual recognition of the plate pings the registered owner, but only when triggered (you obey the laws, the search doesn't start = innocent remain unnoticed). Weren't driving and your borrower skips out on paying you back? You just learned not to loan your car to that person. Could provide incentive to report it stolen when it's objectionably borrowed, as well.

BradQ - those instances would be visible on the camera, and could be allowed for/screened out pretty reasonably - worst case by instituting a human review between the recipient objecting and court response - yes cutting down on efficiency, but it's not an appropriate reason for blanket indictment of such a system. Some intersections would be poor candidates for such a system based on high frequency of legitimate intersection "violations". (gotta argue with the following too close to stop thing too - can't really site much other than yes, I've driven in horrid traffic with enough room to stop, and it IS possible to avoid rear-ending sudden stoppers if enough room is left, you're going slow enough, and have good enough brakes/traction. true, accidents happen, but that would make having cameras around and snapping pictures handy, no?)

I've yet to hear a novel objection that hasn't been addressed or is unable to be addressed via tweaks or judicious application of the system. It's not for every intersection. It's not for every violation and it's not to replace police patrols or monitoring of traffic.

and apparently the laws DO require prospect of punishment in order to get people to follow them, whether automated or human enforced. Otherwise "I'm late", "I'm in a rush", "I'm important", "I'm cool", all win over "I'm inconvenienced, but safe and legal".

I'm not saying existing police force shouldn't be supported and encouraged to enforce the laws of the road. I'm just saying there are other effective and safe ways to get traffic to comply with the laws, accepted and proven out by many freedom lovin' democratic municipalities around the world.

there would maybe be enough cops to issue traffic citations if they weren't running around chasing drugs.

i'd rather see cops walking beats than computers issuing tickets for "pittsburgh lefts".

Where are you guys getting the idea that cameras *replace* police officers? They're *in addition* to police officers.

Brad Q, computers are pretty sophisticated and should be able to discern situations in which you described. If you're already in the intersection when the light turns red, you don't get a ticket. How often are you pulling over for an ambulance and it requires you to pull into an intersection with a red light?

As for the owner getting a ticket, if you let somebody drive your car and they're driving outside of the law, I don't have a problem with the owner footing the bill. Again, how often does that happen?

In the rare instances it does, you can go to court and sort it out.

Not sure how much these systems cost to setup, but I imagine they're getting cheaper all the time and if put in trouble areas, hopefully could eventually pay for themselves

@oierce As for the owner getting a ticket, if you let somebody drive your car and they're driving outside of the law, I don't have a problem with the owner footing the bill

I just HATE when people talk about my old girlfriend like this. It was a mistake to give her the key to my apartment. A MISTAKE. OK?

Do we want to encourage the belief that laws only apply if there is a prospect of punishment?

Many people act as if they believe this already (for instance, the vast majority who buy mail-order items from out of state and don't pay use tax).

People won't pay for the large number of additional police it would take to really enforce traffic laws and change people's behavior.

So the choice is not whether machines or police will enforce traffic laws. The choice is whether or not we want traffic laws enforced.

No computers means essentially no enforcement, which means Pittsburgh drivers will continue to treat red lights as a signal that the car behind them should stop.

I want enforcement of traffic laws!

I want enforcement of the laws that endanger the lives of anyone when they are broken.

If you're already in the intersection when the light turns red, you don't get a ticket.

Right. A properly-implemented camera system triggers when you *enter* the intersection after the red.

I would think that if the fine were quite low, say $10, it would be annoying if you were tagged in error but not infuriating. And yet, that $10 fine, repeated again and again, would be enough to punish the habitual offender. Or, alternatively, the system could be designed to forgive one such ticket every 12 months. Or, create a system of escalating fines for successive offenses in a rolling 12-month period: 5,25,50,85,150. There are a lot of ways to slice this.

One unfortunate side effect of red-light cameras would be drivers (especially those at the end of that scale) driving through stop signs in neighborhoods in order to avoid the cameras on the arterials.

How often are you pulling over for an ambulance and it requires you to pull into an intersection with a red light?

In an ideal world, emergency vehicles would have a priority override for the lights, so they would turn green in advance, giving you the opportunity to clear out lawfully. Also busses would have the ability to override the lights at a lower priority, reducing their incentive to run the red. I don't think that the yellow lights at most intersections are long enough to accommodate busses traveling near the speed limit.

On a side note, I'll bet that the deciding factor in how much someone favors increased law enforcement, is their own experience and expectation of abuses of power.

Aye, Lyle

I wouldn't mind the cameras because 99% of my traveling is done on a bicycle, which these cameras wouldn't be able to do anything about

I wouldn't mind the cameras because 99% of my traveling is done on a bicycle, which these cameras wouldn't be able to do anything about

"We should require bicycle license plates and registration, so our camera system can enforce the laws for cyclists too." Logical next step, no? (Note that I am NOT advocating license plates and registration; however, I would be utterly unsurprised to see it proposed as an additional means to take advantage of the camera system investment.)

Thanks to all for this discussion...it definitely points up the need for me to do some pondering with regards to my philosophic and practical objections.

And then we should require pedestrians to wear license plates on their heads so they too can be punished for crossing against the light.

Hell, might as well put them both in the original bill, along with a fine schedule proportional to the kinetic energy of the offender, and a rider that states that any fines under a dollar are waived, and that failure to show a plate is only to be punishable if a violation meriting a fine of more than one dollar has occurred.

i used to see speed traps at the bottom of the hill on forbes by margaret morrison, back when i was in school in the late 90s, early 2000s. dunno if they still do that, though.

I have a friend who got caught exactly there about six months ago. He went to court and it was a CMU officer who was there to press the charge, if I recall correctly, not a city officer.

I'd far rather spend money on additional cops ... than cameras hooked to data centers.

Um, wouldn't these cameras kind of pay for themselves? Often, when I see a parking or traffic ticket getting written I think "Thanks for making a semi-voluntary contribution to the general fund; we're that much closer to closing this year's budget deficit."

Since cameras with face recognition technology already exist, even pedestrian id "papers" are redundant. Anyone who doesn't think we are already living in Orwells nightmare is just fooling themselves. Have a nice day!

Lyle - I'd love any bill that used a kinetic energy calculation to determine the fee structure. Bonus points if it uses the words momentum or inertia properly. Ecstatic joy if it also can be linked to inflation, so the fines stay relevant.

Science is fun

FWIW, BC doesn't seem to require bike plates/registration, but they use these cameras (and speeding cameras) extensively. But they've got a whole different transportation culture over there - there's talk of disbanding Vancouver's Critical Mass because they got everything they wanted, but people are still riding because, well, it's fun. Different world.

I could see a lot of talk of "it's not fair" about cyclists, but I could also see a camera system triggering on cyclists, and if it triggered habitually, send a patrol car to sit and wait and pull the guy over. Maybe even identify the guy visually, then issue all the back tickets based on the photos. There's all kinds of room for customization and tweaking and human intervening (for good or bad) in systems like this - even if the cyclist fights it, the system would hear why (dangerous intersection in need of attention) and the cyclist might hear the system's message (bikes have to follow laws too).

I think that's a huge part of the appeal to me - every intersection, in any community, is customizable to the requirements of the intersection and the community's wishes. If hundreds of cars a day are running a light based on what the engineers thought were reasonable parameters, that's an instant indicator that something is broken and in need of attention, something isn't working as intended. Either the intersection needs to be altered or the engineers are (gasp) wrong in their understanding.

I just wish it wasn't always a flat out "no" like it seems to be around here. But the local leos might make money from scofflaws! Oh nos! Not that! sigh.

Either the intersection needs to be altered or the engineers are (gasp) wrong in their understanding.

An engineer is never wrong

You design to the prevailing standards or you get your hand smacked by your boss, your license jurisdiction, your client, or worse - the lawyers. Anyone recall how Edgar Snyder made his name? Ask Penndot.

I'm sure Steve or Scott knows how much it costs a municipality to deviate from the prevailing standards on the roads.

If it was up to me, there'd be no signs, signals or lane markings - take away all safety from the road until the only action a driver can perform is the constant avoidance of collisions.

sloaps - that's how driving in Lebanon was described to me by some very good friends who had escaped to West Africa. Well, that plus mortar fire. It works for some parts of the world... well, it works well enough that they haven't changed it yet (or have been distracted by more pressing issues, like war, famine, etc). still made me laugh when I tried to picture ARB/Washington BLVD/Butler intersection that way. Permanent CF.

"Prevailing Standards"... I didn't think we had any, since the roads and intersections around here seem to be like snowflakes - each one unique. I guess that's a problem, when the road is grandfathered in to a system that then tries to enforce standards that the road doesn't meet at all. Seems like a good excuse to hid our heads in the sand with the status quo - anything else is illegal at best and impossible at worst. sigh.

Durn it, I still want the laws enforced.

It's complex.

To go with that, we live in a special part of the world that had no prevailing standard - and some muni's still don't recognize it - for the design, construction and maintenance of surface transportation up to 1950 or so.

City and County has their own ways of doing things, while smaller hamlets and muni's just piggybacked off that. Back then, they could do that, because it was all locally funded, hence no encumbrances from feds and state. Nowadays, most places use federal and state standards - when there's fed or state funds involved you're compelled to.

I'm guessing the state and federal funds to bring roads up to state and federal standards also dried up in the 1950s (if it ever existed, otherwise this wouldn't be a problem.

"Meet our standards, and we'll give you money!"

"Give us money and we'll meet your standards!"

In most municipalities, even a modest $25 or $50 ticket ends up costing 2x to 3x due to the addition of court costs, etc. It does end up being more than an annoyance when it gets to three digits.

And, in reference to sloaps statement: "If it was up to me, there'd be no signs, signals or lane markings - take away all safety from the road until the only action a driver can perform is the constant avoidance of collisions" -- it feels to me like that is the circumstance for cyclists - that we are having to function on a grid intended strictly for motor vehicles, in the absence of effective laws/enforcement of measures that afford us any real rights or protections, and among a motoring population who because of that lack of laws/enforcement treats us with contempt and disrespect. (Forgive the rant)

If hundreds of cars a day are running a light based on what the engineers thought were reasonable parameters

That would be an average of about one per cycle all day long. I think I can find a few lights that are close to that.

Motorists are running the lights because that has become the norm (just like cyclists), not because the signals are improperly designed.

Wouldn't it be sweet if the lights were smart enough to adapt to the actual conditions? But I no longer expect that to happen in my lifetime.

Lyle - it has happened! It just hasn't happened here Well, to be fair, the metal detectors, when installed in the right location and sample rates/timing are implemented appropriately, work pretty well at adapting to motor vehicle traffic needs. Which is not quite the same.

I like the "traffic control centers" in movies that the protagonists (or antagonists) "hack" to take control of, so they can instantly manipulate traffic to suit/thwart their diabolical plans, complete with giant screens displaying key intersections and color coding and interns fetching people coffee. Like NASA's flight command center, only ground transport.

I'd settle for Pgh hiring an engineer. (or another, if they only have one, I don't remember, either are inadequate for a city this size).

(ALMKLM - damn skippy that's our world in a nutshell. thus RF's original post. eloquent rant.)

http://www.wdef.com/news/cleveland_red_light_cameras_turned_off/04/2010

I recall someone writing that expecting public transit to pay for itself with fares is like expecting the police department to pay for itself with parking tickets; both are there for the public good, and if you tried to balance their services with their revenues like a private company, you'd end up severely damaging the public service they provide.

@ Lyle CTRTCS

From the same Cleveland article:

"Both the city and the camera company were losing money on them."

"Traffic accidents decreased by over 31-percent at the intersections with cameras last year."

So the reporter doesn't bother to reconcile those facts? Sheesh. How much do emergency services cost per accident I wonder?

Seems like insurance companies should have some interest in footing the $ for traffic cameras?

oh, Cleveland.

"I'm glad. I don't have to look over my back anymore cause everytime I go through there I'm always like oh what if they snip me cause I always go through on the yellow. It's always just iffy. I'm like am I gonna get a ticket or am I not. Now that I know they shut it down, it's awesome. I love it."

That guy missed the whole point - if it's iffy, stop.

Looks like they did cut costs for insurance companies: "Traffic accidents decreased by over 31-percent at the intersections with cameras last year."

everytime the red light camera debate comes up, i hear the same end-of-the-world-and-all-of-our-freedoms scenarios and philosophical arguments, but when they actually get put in none of it seems to come true. usually they seem to be placed in very strategic intersections where there is a serious problem of breaking the law.

i've also read that yes, rear-ending crashes do seem to increase from people slamming on their brakes, but there is also decrease in head-on collisions and collisions with pedestrians (both of which tend to be more damaging and fatal than a rear-end) leading to an overall net decrease in crashes.

I'd love any bill that used a kinetic energy calculation to determine the fee structure.

This reminds me of those European countries where fees for speeding are based on the speeder's income (and how fast he was going). Highest so far was a fine of $850,000 or so, for going 185 mph on a road in Switzerland. (Previously discussed here.)

We wouldn't have to link a red-light-running fee to inflation if we linked it to the driver's income. (Not gonna happen though.)

@Lolly I want enforcement of the laws that endanger the lives of anyone when they are broken.

Police: "Well Ma'm, you can't have that. But we'd be glad to bust some reefer smokers for you, if you'd like."