Florida shortened yellow lights to increase red light camera revenue [video]
wtsp.com
wtsp.com
The yellow light means "Clear the intersection," not "Slow down." The purpose is to give time to people crossing the sidewalks to finish walking over to the other side. Shortening them is a safety hazard for pedestrians like me who don't own a vehicle.
I don't live in Florida, but this is shameful and disgusting.
Shortening it makes it dangerous for a lot of parties.
This obviously only applies where pedestrian signage exists.
Then, there's also the issue that many pedestrians are still in the process of crossing when the hand turns red.
I'm sorry, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Did you mean:
> the traffic lights turn yellow even when the "do-not-cross" signal is still flashing
If not, could you explain? If so, where do you live that the lights do this? I've never seen that behavior (although I'm the first to say I haven't lived many places).
Here in Toronto, we have an additional two seconds of "all red" light after any yellow lights, to give time for left-turning vehicles to finish their turn.
The decision was made for poor reasons. There's nothing preventing them from making the same decision for the same reasons again, effectively increasing the reduction of time. It's important to call out poor behavior in government lest, even if it's slight, lest it become institutionalized and then exacerbated.
Here's a news story from 35 years ago on the topic: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19780310&...
This is usually referred to as a delayed green light. They are absolutely terrible for public safety.
There are drivers who look at the opposite light to get a cue as to when they should go.
It also pisses regular drivers off, because it looks like absolutely nothing is happening for everyone and they have to sit there and wait for no good reason. A yellow light, even a long one, at least shows some sort of activity and progress.
Without fail, near the end of the month there will be a cop car sitting under the bridge overlooking the turn for hours just waiting for someone to make the turn. Shamelessly sitting there, in the dark and under a bridge, blocking half the rightmost lane of a busy street, causing a far greater safety concern than would be caused by anyone taking a normal right-on-red at that corner.
For visual reference, this is the intersection:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.917322,-117.2356...
The people getting popped for right hand turns are the ones to the left in this image. The cop sits under that bridge in the shadow area without any lights on, taking up over half of the rightmost (leftmost from this view) lane. The difference in brightness between daylight and under that short overpass bridge is very high.
I had previously thought such rigid quotas were mostly urban legend until I saw the pattern repeat over and over with my own eyes.
1. Blocking 3/4 of one of the lanes under the bridge is a danger to both motorists and pedestrians. 2. I highly doubt there are many pedestrians at this intersection. It is basically an industrial park and the road dead ends a block away.
100% enforcement of traffic laws calculated with machine precision is mindbogglingly stupid, and proponents willfully bury their heads in the sand regarding the conflict of interest and the eventual outcome of such an arrangement. So yes, I sympathize with people committing what amounts to normal human error, and despise those who seek to profit off of it.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken."
<snipped>
"But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
Why are such quotes inappropriate?
Even giving these things, these are of course no reason to never quote her. Hell, there is a time and a place for quoting even Himmler.
For myself, I'm a 40 year old that leans Libertarian so I tend to agree with some of her political philosophy. I even tried reading Atlas Shrugged but it was so boring I put it down after about 100 pages.
One is that her ideas were not particularly original, and not particularly well-expressed. Self-centered philosophies are far from new, and actually are pretty well-trod ground, but her work does little to address already-existing critiques and, as literature, is not particularly good (her characters tend to be one-dimensional, plots lack good development/tension/resolution, etc.).
Another is that she has become a frankly cult-like figure, with people approaching her work the wrong way around: rather than "this statement is correct, and Ayn Rand said it", too often there is a seeming attitude of "this statement is correct because Ayn Rand said it". The Objectivist movement (people who follow her work and philosophy) is particularly infamous for this, having an established history of venerating her and doing some rather extreme turns when she was alive and particular people from her circle fell out of her favor.
Finally, most of her work is easy to critique with only very basic reasoning/argumentative skills, despite presenting itself as a solid, rationally-justified framework. More realistically, Rand's philosophy consists of appeals to emotional responses, based on the idea of self-evaluation of one's own greatness and the notion that this greatness exists more or less in a vacuum (one of the famous examples is "going Galt", wherein all of the great people who produce value simply retreat and form their own separate society, to spite the "parasites" who "leeched" off their work).
To continue with the fiction theme, one of Heinlein's stories ("The Roads Must Roll", 1940) anticipated and harshly criticized the type of philosophy Rand ended up promoting. One of the asides there is to a philosophy of "Functionalism"; the founder of the philosophy advocates evaluating people -- and giving them power and prestige -- based on what "function" they can perform, and how valuable it is to society.
The result is large numbers of people who do not really make any unusually-significant contributions, but who all come to the conclusion that whatever they do is the one truly indispensable thing, and if they stopped doing it the whole society would fall apart, so they should be given more power or prestige over others in recognition. As Heinlein puts it, "With so many different functions actually indispensible, such self-persuasion was easy." Heinlein also offers a description of the founder of "Functionalism" which critiques the philosophy and in many ways critiques Rand's later work as well, when he says:
The complete interdependence of modern economic life seems to have escaped him entirely.
(see Wikipedia for a summary of the story, or look it up -- it's been republished/anthologized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll)
Or, more succinctly, "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
Any quote has an appropriate moment when it directly relates to the topic at hand, despite where it originated from.
I drive rather than walking everywhere because I have better things to do with my time. I ignore, rather than specifically evaluating Ayn Rand quotes because I have better things to do with my time.
Oh sure, she might have accidentally said something both true and interesting every once in a while. And Mathgen[0] might accidentally produce a valid proof, if you run it enough times.
So you're basically openly saying that you are willing to comment here, without considering the perspectives being put forth that you're replying to, which at the very least seems against the spirit of HN, and more realistically is against the process of rational thought in general.
Avoiding effort with respect to discussing ideas that I can broadly (and efficiently) classify as not likely to be worthwhile gives me time to think about and discuss other ideas that are more likely to be worth my time. Does it "get me bias" if I ignore the rantings of a crazy person I see on the street?
>So you're basically openly saying that you are willing to comment here, without considering the perspectives being put forth that you're replying to, which at the very least seems against the spirit of HN, and more realistically is against the process of rational thought in general.
I didn't reply to the Ayn Rand comment. I replied to the comment about blind rejection, the perspective behind which comment I did consider.
"That's not a reply worthy of HN because it is mean and doesn't give any consideration to the topic under discussion" would have been a reasonable reply to thrownaway2424. "Blind rejection is intellectually lazy" was not.
Deciphering a logical point may or may not happen depending on the context. It's more likely to happen in an HN thread than by listening to a crazy person.
Efficiency would necessitate not blind rejection, but a decision to simply not judge. Rejection is a judgment. Judgment without logic is a bias.
The "blind rejection" comment you originally replied to, was pretty clearly referring to judgment without logic. This is something different from intellectual efficiency, which would simply be deciding to not form a judgment at the time, if one reasonably decided that there was not enough information available at that moment to do so, and the importance doing something else outweighed the importance of judging the idea in that moment.
So, while I agree with a concept of efficiency or temporary non-judgment, I disagree that it's the same thing as auto-rejection, which is judgment.
By countering a counter to a comment advocating auto-rejection of ideas, you seemed to be advocating auto-rejection of ideas, as opposed to advocating non-judgment.
I guess auto-rejection is also technically an "efficient" approach, but it is definitely intellectually lazy. Non-judgment is not intellectually lazy, if actually used for the sake of efficiency and not avoidance.
In any case, by "blind rejection" I meant "automatic disregard", not "automatic disagreement". I certainly agree that automatically disagreeing with a person, regardless of what they say, is a losing strategy except in the very specific case that you've encountered and conclusively identified the fabled Omniscient Lying Labyrinth Guard.
Her influence was never particularly large, and has faded over time, but left a cultural mark. (See all the objections to the GP? :)
From an outsider's perspective it just seems... odd.
If you enjoy this sort of thing, check out reddit sometime.
I personally find Ayn Rand too simplistic and from a literary point of view hardly readable but I think she's definitely an important part of American culture but I think at this point she's not as widely read as 20 or 30 years ago.
The US is more right-wing than Europe. People into computers in the US are fairly affluent, probably even more so compared to Europe. HN readers are more business focused and less hacker/community focused than other people into computers.
Generalizations of course, but I would bet few of the people answering you have been to CCC for instance.
Apparently, I've seemed to have only succeeded in flushing out the pro and anti-Ayn Rand camps. My mistake.
But it still struck me as funny how many of us HN's (self included) jumped to the defense of Weebly for "optimizing revenue" in the "When a Startup Sends a Passive-Aggressive Email Every Day " story that was trending earlier today (1)
If Florida's red-light system was my start-up I'd be pretty damned pleased with myself for figuring out how to drive more revenue with "no cost".
Kumar Patel: No sir.
George W. Bush: Do you like gettin' hand jobs?
Kumar Patel: [smirking] Heh, yeah.
George W. Bush: Yeah well, that makes you a fuckin' hypocriticizer too
EDIT: Linked to proposed standard and equation
They do, through the MUTCD: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#q32
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/learn-secret-how-you-can...
These people should be charged with public endangerment.
edit: Also as someone pointed out, less warning to pedestrians to clear the cross walk and less time to do so. Very safety conscious.
There was a town that took down all stop signs and traffic lights, and it significantly decreased traffic accidents and injuries.
We've talked about it at length. There would be major changes in law enforcement practices if automated cars obviated trivial traffic law enforcement stops.
Good luck fighting that ticket, well within the California State law.
Too bad they don't have to set the yellow light timing consistantly. That probally wouldn't give you the 2x increase in citations.
It seems reasonable to ticket those who would be impacted by this, for if the forumla is correct it should just impact speeders.
I agree with the sentiment shared by others that the all stop time should stay the same to protect drivers from the speeders.
https://plus.google.com/115905827925711420560/posts/LauLtrvS...
Example of a right turned that ended in a photo enforced ticket.
Edit: fixed the link.
I never received anything, and I found out about the yellow light abuses.
That said, I've been thinking for quite some time now that it might be best to just add a count-down number on the lights to show you how many seconds are left until the green light turns yellow. If you are going to beat the light, might as well speed up a bit from afar than by a lot near the intersection.
When a deterrent is working, you get very few violations. Rewarding the detection of violations is incentivizing exactly the wrong thing. You're rewarding for making things worse!
I don't know what incentives would work, in the case of red light cameras.
- Accuracy on unmarked test cars going through the intersection? (testing is expensive)
- Clamping the income from fines below some threshold? (the threshold might be manipulated)
- Rewarding low accident rates relative to other intersections? (probably too unstable)
How we get from here to there, I don't know.
Oh and the fine of 10 mph (16km/h) over the limit is 174 USD... but really, this is about safety, not about the money :X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
Excerpt:
Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
(I mostly walk, thankfully. And don't live in Florida.)
If they didn't increase the all-red time they are making the roads more dangerous. People get accustomed to the length of the yellow & all-red time. But if the total doesn't change, only the relative proportions it shouldn't have an impact on safety.
Yellow lights increase safety by avoiding the "slam on the brakes" effect you've described. They've replaced this with a very common "floor the accelarator" reaction which also decreases safety. How do you get one without the other? Red light cameras combined with a short yellow seem the best approach to me.
In a typical car, flooring the gas pedal is conservatively going to be about 9ft/s² in the same direction as you're already moving. Slamming on the brakes is going to accelerate you at about 15ft/s² in the opposite direction as you're already moving. The effects these two actions have on safety are not comparable
>Red light cameras combined with a short yellow seem the best approach to me.
Except that that approach has been conclusively demonstrated to increase both accidents and fatalities, while lengthening yellow lights has been shown to reduce both accidents and fatalities.
This line of discussion is unrelated to whether or not they should be trying to maximise fines.
This says nothing about safety leading up to the intersection (e.g. - people slamming on their brakes).
I am worried about the case where the driver, distracted, looks away from the intersection for a second. Returning their gaze to the light, they see it red. They never observed it yellow, and thus they have no idea how long it has been red and whether or not it is safe to run the light. Perhaps this is why we have yellow to begin with--as an redundant means of clocking the time until the opposing light turns green.
The counter-argument is well it increases chance of rear end collision when people stop suddenly. And that is true.
The counter-argument to the above is well they should be driving with enough assured distance between vehicles and below the speed limit.
To "maximize" revenue they could be making the legally correct assumption that everyone is keeping a good enough distance and driving below the speed limit, and they'd actually have a legally defensible position as much as I hate to admit it.
(It is also hard to argue informally that they don't know what they are doing, they know perfectly well, as others pointed out, if this was a start up maximizing revenue we should be cheering, right, right...?)
Also, is shortening yellows actually making the roads safer or is it just a way to increase revenues? Seems like one likely cause of shorter yellow lights is that more people make harder stops at intersections, result in more rear-end collisions.
Of course in practice most folks will go for it if they think they can clear the intersection in time. Some may even accelerate, and having excessively long yellow lights may encourage that behavior even more, despite it being illegal.
If you are in doubt about whether you can safely stop when the light turns yellow (and you have very little time to make that judgment), it's much safer to err on the side of running it.
The longer the yellow light is, the more likely you are to be able to correctly judge whether you can stop on time. The shorter yellow lights are in your area, the more likely you are to to slam on the brakes to avoid running the red light. Slamming on the brakes is far more dangerous than running a freshly changed red light, to say nothing of running a yellow.
Nevertheless, we do have some red light cameras here. One day I was stuck at an intersection with a camera, and I was waiting to turn left. I had a red left turn signal, and it suddenly stopped cycling. It was rush hour, and after three cycles with no green arrow, I called the non-emergency dispatch and told them the problem and asked the cop what I should do. She told me to take the safest course of action I thought I could. I told her that was running the red light during a break from oncoming traffic, but that I would be given a ticket for this. She said she couldn't invite me to break the law, but just do the safest thing. The legal move would have been to change lanes to the right and go straight through the intersection on a green, but this was also the most dangerous choice because of the heavy traffic flow. Thankfully the light cycle following my conversation with the cop, I got my green arrow, but it sucked to feel so helpless--knowing the safest and correct action (running the red once oncoming traffic allowed it) and knowing I would be penalized for it.
Even worse: Red light cameras make intersections LESS safe by INCREASING accident rates:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1835.asp
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/red-light_cameras_l...
This only makes sense since you're removing decision power from the person most qualified to make the decision (whether it's safe to stop or not).
Your other two links make a common mistake in traffic safety debates by assuming that an increase in accident rates is a decrease in safety. Look at the types of accidents that are increased or reduced by red light cameras and you'll see that they generally do make intersections safer by reducing high speed, side impact collisions. This comes at the cost of increased low speed collisions, namely people running into someone's bumper as they slam on their brakes to avoid the red light ticket which is a psychological (risk aversion) problem, not a problem with the technology itself.
And in conclusion, drivers are the most self-entitled scofflaws in the world.