They need something. People do not know what stop means. We have a 'right > turn on red after stop' law. Nobody stops any more. I guess somepeople think > it means stop only if somebody is in the way.> Then there are the people who stop on yield signs when not necessary. These > should also be snapshoted and fined. People who do not get up to speed > before merging into freeway traffic should be snapshotted and fined. People > who go way below the speed limit and cause long lines of pissed off drivers > should be snapshotted and fined too. Oh yes, with cameras we'll catch the > law breakers and the people who drive other people to break the law because > of their stupidity. >

Got this idea from another poster and it makes sense. Cameras can't>engage in profiling or be bribed. With cameras at intersections, even>the lawyers and cops and doctors and big-shot politicians get caught>and we can't have that can we?

Actually, it is for a bit different reason. Politicians are> often away from home and they don't want to get a ticket> mailed to their residence with their photo enclosed. You> never know who is going to be with them when they get caught> by the camera at that intersection. It could cause a nasty> scene back home.

Red light cameras are opposed for three reasons:> 1) They create absurd tickets. For example, here in North Carolina,> one sent a man in a POLICE-ESCORTED funeral procession a ticket for> going through a red light as instructed!> 2) They violate legal rules against PAID "evidence." Yes, that's> exactly what paying Peek Traffic on COMMISSION to write tickets is!!> 3) Their financing generally violates state laws in many states that> require schools - not Peek Traffic nor cities - to get fines. Here in> North Carolina, a lawsuit over this has shut down many traffic camera> systems.

C.H. wrote:

So lets replace fines with jail time.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:58:27 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend> wrote:>

Ok, jail time for you sounds good.>

Chris

Got this idea from another poster and it makes sense. Cameras can't>engage in profiling or be bribed. With cameras at intersections, even>the lawyers and cops and doctors and big-shot politicians get caught>and we can't have that can we?

Cameras don't prevent poor drivers from running red lights. Cameras don't> call for help when there is an accident. Cameras don't fix poorly > designed> intersections.> ------------> Alex

Cameras don't prevent poor drivers from running red lights.

Cameras don't> call for help when there is an accident.

Cameras don't fix poorly designed> intersections.

------------> Alex

Actually, no. They only snap a picture when they think someone ran

--------------> Alex

Can you cite a statute for this? I've never heard of "running the> yellow" being a citable offense. Only running the red.

Check this out:> http://www.nzherald­.co.nz/index.cfm?Obj­ectID=227632

Can you cite a statute for this? I've never heard of "running the>yellow" being a citable offense. Only running the red. I don't think>I've ever seen a state where you can be cited for still passing through>an intersection when the signal turns red. In most places I've seen,>that happens every cycle.

In some states, such as Virginia, the law requires you to stop for> yellow if you can reasonably do so. In the District of Columbia, the> law at one time required you to stop on yellow in any case (yes,> D.C. is screwed up). In Louisiana, it's illegal to be still passing> through the intersection on red if you entered on yellow.>

Most states, fortunately, don't make running the yellow an offense in> any case.

So other than VA and LA, is there any other state that has this>completely impossible law? Did the DC law you reference change? It's>physically impossible for most traffic to stop on a yellow. The instant>it turns yellow, assuming you accurately summed up the DC law, you>would be in violation if you are moving through -- which happens of>course on every yellow light.

Which is a completely asinine way to write the law since it ENCOURAGES> people to inch out into an intersection that they know they'll NEVER> be able to get through before the light turns red.>

How do they prevent intersections from just becoming clogged with> traffic?>

My guess is they don't.>

Seems perfectly reasonable to me

This doesn't make yellow light running illegal because it has the>provision common in many states that makes slowing down and stopping on>yellow conditional on safety -- IOW, the ability to safely come to a>stop at the line when you see the light go yellow.>

The statute you quoted says: "If a driver cannot stop in safety, the>driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.">

I guess this plays into your earlier comment that it's rarely enforced>because it is so subjective.

Yup - pretty simple and straightforward.

From what I have observed red light running in states where red light> running is defined as entering the intersection AFTER the light turns> red is much worse and even less strictly enforced than in states

Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if> you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to get a> ticket.

<k_flynn@lycos.com>­ wrote:>

In some states, such as Virginia, the law requires you to stop for> yellow if you can reasonably do so.

On 27 Apr 2005 12:42:53 -0700, k_flynn@lycos.com wrote:

Sure, it's subjective, but it seems the rule of thumb is that if>you're still in the intersection when it's red, you're going to get a>ticket.

What if you're waiting to make a left turn?>

What if you're waiting to make a left turn, and you find yourself in

left-turn trap?

The Etobian wrote:>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:49:20 -0700, K Smythe <nospam@dev.null> wrote:>>

We've discussed this before; there should not be a left turn trap>permitted. Why a jurisdiction would purposely program a signal in such>a way is unfathomable and, with all that is known, seems criminal.>Doesn't its mere existence in that case you cited violate MUTCD?

I've lived in Virginia since 1969 and I've never heard of any such statute.

Note that, by the way that the statute is written, this is the

Yes, the 'stop in safety' clause is highly subjective. What

You do occasionally see someone stopped for passing through the> yellow when it was obvious that the driver could stop safely before

From Virginia code section 46.2-833:>

"Steady amber indicates that a change is about to be made in the> direction of the moving of traffic. When the amber signal is shown,> traffic which has not already entered the intersection, including> the crosswalks, shall stop if it is not reasonably safe to

Cite one then, and stop simply asserting it. Most state laws I've

According to the laws in some states.>

Only in some states.

K Smythe wrote:>> On 27 Apr 2005 14:35:27 -0700, k_flynn@lycos.com wrote:>(snip)>> >You>> >only run a red light when you cross the stop line *after* the light>has>> >turned red.>>

(snip)>

Since you didn't bother to look up the law even in your own state>before posting, I took the liberty once seeing here that you sayy you>are in AZ to look up the applicable AZ statute. It seems that the>scenario I laid out is in fact the law in your state of AZ as well.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:49:20 -0700, K Smythe <nospam@dev.null> wrote:>

What if you're waiting to make a left turn?

What if you're waiting to make a left turn, and you find yourself in a>left-turn trap?

VERY GOOD!>

And my experience here is what has demonstrated to me that not> requiring people to pay attention to yellow lights actually curtails> the flow of traffic.

U.V.C. on this point, but the law regarding traffic signal

[begin quote]>

(b) Steady yellow indication. (1) Vehicular traffic facing a steady> circular yellow or yellow arrow 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.

(c) Steady red indication. (1) Vehicular traffic facing a> steady circular red or red arrow signal alone shall stop at a clearly> marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the> near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the> intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to

[end quote]>

Thus, unlike other states, Kansas does not acknowledge the legal> constructs of "being in the intersection legally" or "being able to> stop in safety"--which, as others have pointed out in this thread,

ambiguous. There is nothing in the law which relieves the driver of> his duty to stop behind the stop line/crosswalk/near­side of the> intersection box (as applicable) even if it is not practically

driver's responsibility to plan transits of signalized intersections

that the light is safely behind him or her when it turns from yellow

red.

I'd have to disagree with your interpretation here. See below.>

Here, this makes it pretty plain that you cannot enter the

passage above says it best: the yellow signal is a "warning" to

says, it is only "thereafter" (the red) when "vehicular traffic shall> not enter the intersection." It says nothing that requires a driver

come to a stop on yellow, in fact. It doesn't even require you to> *try* to come to a stop before red. Just so that you don't cross the> line *after* red.>

As the next section defining a steady red then shows, traffic facing

must then stop before the stop line or crosswalk. A vehicle that has> already passed the line legally on yellow is unaffected by this

And here I disagree. In fact, nothing in the KS statute establishes a> requirement to stop on yellow or to completely exit the intersection> before red, and as we know through common practice, if the law> doesn't specifically prohibit it, you can't be cited for it.

The KS statute here defines yellow only as a warning that green is> ending and red is coming. In the absence of anything else, how can a> case be made that merely completing your pass through the

I looked up the Louisiana traffic code after posting the earlier> message, and as I had been led to believe, LA does in fact

anyone knows of another, I'd appreciate hearing it.

I note that LA uses the same boilerplate language on signal meanings

most other states *BUT* accomplishes the goal of stricter

box on red. I would argue that this strengthens my case, since other> states lack this specific additional language, and that it is in fact> legal to be in the intersection completing your passage as the light> turns red, as long as you were across the line on yellow.

driver who enters the intersection on a stale yellow which turns to

when he or she is midway through the intersection is still facing the> red indication, but can no longer stop behind the just-traversed near> edge of the intersection box, and is thus violating the law.

I am actually not persuaded there is a U.V.C. direct adopter state in> which your scenario is legal. I think it is more a question of the> authorities choosing to tolerate "squeezing the lemon" behavior at> intersections which have good visibility.

No, it doesn't enhance it because you end up with people racing to

their bumper over the stop line before it turns red rather than

When you hold up people who have a green light, you are impeding> traffic.

How do you read it as an exception? I read it as an integral part of> the statute.>

One very crucial factor would be the likelihood of being rear-ended in> a precipitous stop!>

As it should be. After all, what evidence is needed to "make it> obvious" that the driver could have stopped safely? Some might speed up> to complete the pass through precisely because their judgement was that> that could *not* have safely stopped and therefore should make the move> expeditiously.>

Screaming insults was only my way of retaliating

Pretty sad

L Sternn wrote:>> On 29 Apr 2005 16:25:52 -0700, k_flynn@lycos.com wrote:>>

Of course. But he brought it on himself by initiating it. I will>discuss civilly with anyone, but once they begin twisting and lying>about the actual argument, then become abusive in their own ignorance,>I will respond in kind. It's likely all he'd understand anyway.

That's still sad

Generally, where I've seen it enforced, is as an add-on violation

I agree. At least up to a point. You start seeing 7 or 8 second

I'd like to see some type of 'countdown to red' indicator on traffic> signals (that extends over both the green and yellow phases). Not

Actually, no. The driver of a vehicle who enters the intersection on>yellow is legal only if he or she LEAVES the intersection on yellow.

A driver who enters the intersection on a stale yellow which turns to red>when he or she is midway through the intersection is still facing the>red indication, but can no longer stop behind the just-traversed near>edge of the intersection box, and is thus violating the law.

It is correct that the statute does not create a duty to stop on>yellow, or an EXPLICIT duty to clear the intersection before red.>However, a duty of the latter kind is implied (see below).

People have been cited for running red lights when they entered the>intersection on yellow. The Wichita police has periodic blitzes on>precisely this infraction.