At one point in my career one of the counties that we oversaw wanted to install a new red light camera. They asked us (transportation department) to help come up with some good locations. I made a heatmap of all angle (t-bone) collisions and listed the most severe intersections for them. The local police department proceeded to completely ignore that list and advocated for placing the camera at one of the most congested, but low crash severity intersections in the county, making me realize that all they cared about was how many tickets they could write and they didn't care about the safety impact at all.
Policing for profit. It’s the same reason why the police will proceed to enact “speed enforcement” and pull radar on straight, tree-lined freeways with a 70 MPH speed limit, but they won’t do the same on residential thoroughfares that pass by schools and playgrounds. It’s all for potential revenue, not safety of the public.
That's why I'm highly against quotas in police the US tends to have quotas for police officers because they make more money that way. On the flip side Japan tends to do the opposite and has quotas against arresting people and etc. Police job should just be what it's supposed to be and it is about protecting public safety and nothing more there should be no quotas. What's that about this too is cameras can actually be beneficial especially when a crime has recently been taken place they can be used to help either find a missing child. But instead they're used more often for petty offenses.
I remember a news story that said a California town installed red light cameras, then reduced the yellow light time to increase the number of violations. The result was drivers began standing on their brakes anytime a light turned yellow, leading to an increase in rear-end collisions at the intersections.
Aurora, Colorado did the same thing. Reduced the yellow light time. Finally the people voted to get rid of red light cameras. Suddenly the yellow light time increased.
In my opinion, police funding should be entirely separate from tickets. We need to incentivize the police to keep us safe, not to fit their monthly quota
@@bearcubdaycare Exactly! If you want to use incentives to achieve a particular goal, then why no base the incentives on the actual goal itself! I'm sure that there are plenty of ways for this to backfire too, but why not try it?
I remember that in Southern California, one of the first cities to get red light cameras was either Pasadena, or South Pasadena. One issue that made the news was a man who got a red light camera ticket when he was out of town. I think that back then (1980s) he had to go to the city or police station to see the photo. He saw in the photo a man who wasn’t himself driving his car with his wife in the passenger seat. It was how he discovered his wife was cheating on him.
@@OkieDokieSmokie His woman was in the car. It was considered that she gave him permission. Nice try. That guy that was in the car should pay the tickets.
I got ticketed by a red light camera in San Mateo, California, a couple of decades ago. I didn't even know I got ticketed until eight months after the incident, when I received a notice of fines and penalties amounting to over $800, which amounted to a whole week's salary then. I was outraged! After some initial flailing around on where to go to find out why I never even received a summons for my red light violation, I ended up at the City of San Mateo Police Department front counter, which happened to be in the building right at the intersection of the red light I supposedly ran. Turns out the violation summons was actually issued by a company from some state in the southwest, either Nevada or New Mexico, NOT by the San Mateo Police Department. At the time, I received my mail at my Post Office Box, not at my street address, which didn't even have a mailbox or delivery to one. The P. O. Box is listed on all my DMV documents as a secondary address, the street address being the primary address, and all DMV mail listed both. After speaking with the officer in charge of red light camera citations, I discovered they sent the summons to my street address only, not listing my secondary address, and I lit into him after that, pointing out that the return address on the summonses this private company in the southwest sent out, was to the San Mateo Police Department, so they would have received the undeliverable mail, and known I was not notified, and they should have investigated further. I pointed out that I received ALL notices from the DMV, driver's License and Registrations, and even the county clerk managed to find my correct address to bill me for all the fines and charges for non-appearance, so why couldn't their police department find me to make sure I was served? There was no answer for that, and I found, since I was already convicted and the case closed, there was no appealing the decision. The deadline for paying the fines was approaching, and I received no contact from the police, nor did they respond to my inquiries, so I paid the fine, and a week or two later contacted the court clerk for a transcript of my trial, as I decided to sue the City in small claims court to retrieve my money. That's when I found out the charges were dropped, so the case, effectively, never happened, and I received my money back from the county within a week or two. I appreciated that, but I wish they would have kept me informed of what was going on. And, by the way, it was a right turn on red, with no other cars or pedestrians in the intersection.
Houston citizens got rid of ours. vetoed the council and mayor. When we revoked the red light cameras, Houston officials said they needed to make up $10Million in lost revenue to their budget. We citizens all just said, "I thought it was about safety and not revenue."
Houston's red light camera contract stated that the city would have had to pay penalties if the cameras were removed prematurely. Later the state changed the laws for automated red light cameras so that there was no longer any penalty for not paying the fine.
What pissed me off the most was them altering light timing at every one of those intersections. Y'all remember how many trucks spilled loads? 40 tons can't stop that quick
@@mwhitelaw8569 That happens a lot in which yellow lights have their timing reduced to generate more red-light tickets when red-light cameras are installed there.
I work in a law office. A couple years ago, an attorney who works there came in and said she's received a red light ticket from a camera near the office. The ticket had a link to video footage of the offense being committed. Sure enough, she had driven right through a red light without stopping, or hardly even slowing down for that matter. The kicker is that she didn't realize that a red light meant she had to stop. She thought a red light only required her to yield. This was a licensed attorney saying this. It's mind blowing to me that there are drivers on the road who don't realize that you're required to stop at red lights.
stopping on right at red is something I was taught at drivers ED where I used to live in North Carolina. I specifically remember the instructor saying "treat a red signal as a stop sign when turning right or you WILL be ticketed." and I have done this my whole life; always coming to a stop with cars even beeping their horns behind me even though it is still illegal where I live. The police, however, just happen to be a lot more relaxed about it and for good reason as this is not where effort in law enforcement should be placed. I have never received a ticket of any kind, only one warning because I did not notice a speed reduction and the officer was actually very kind as she mentioned how often it happens there due to poor signage (the city later made it more obvious by moving the sign). so I am surprised that an "attorney" would not know this information about something as simple as right turn on red when that was literally the first thing I looked up under state law when I moved and in my case did not change. I still agree that this situation should be treated differently as there is much less risk involved in a right turn (assuming right hand traffic) so do not misunderstand me here. I am only questioning this individual's knowledge as an attorney and I would expect her to follow the law at least more precisely then I do given I have having no interest in practicing law.
Yes to make a right on Red, the signal works as "Stop" sign, meaning you must stop regardless of traffic/pedestrians or not, and then make right as you would do with Stop sign.
Just another self entitled case ofive been doing this for x amount of years and I know what I'm doing. It's like when you have a doctor who smokes and drinks.
We need to remove ALL revenue incentive from law enforcement! Whether it's civil asset forfeiture or red light cameras, government cannot come to depend on criminal activity as a source of revenue. That's WHY we pay taxes.
They create criminal activity by their unconstitutional laws. If they made a law that said it was illegal to be named Paul you would be a criminal. The government creates problems only to offer their solutions.
What bugs me is when I see a green light and start to go through, and it goes yellow as I am in the intersection. So I instinctively start to slow down before realizing that if I stop I will be in the middle and so I accelerate to get through and see the light go red as I go under it. Then I am left wondering if I will get a ticket for weeks.
I lived in Belmont, CA when they dismantled all the red light cameras because data showed a significant increase in accidents, specifically, rear-ending type. The drivers were afraid to get a ticket for running on a yellow light and would slam the brakes causing a rear-ending.
Shoulda focused more on the cities that intentionally alter the light timing to generate more revenue. It's been documented multiple times. That 100% shoots a hole a truck can roll through into their claims that this is for safety. When you make the intersection less safe because you WANT people to run red lights, I believe you should be held criminally liable if something bad happens in that intersection.
Some times the green arrow is a tyrant, at 2am you can just make a left turn, except this red light thinks it knows better for some reason. Motorcycles are not even detected by most lights because traffic engineers think they are a lesser people so you end up running lefts fairly often. Then your distinction between right and wrong starts to fade, then you join the Hell's Angels...
@@joshuaerickson2458 I have seen some new signals go up in my area - the left turn arrow can be red, green, or blinking yellow. A sign explains that the blinking yellow means that you are allowed to turn, but must yield to all other traffic so essentially turn at your own risk. For example, there is a nearby intersection where the main road has three settings: northbound and left turn arrow, north and southbound, then southbound and left turn arrow, then the side street, then repeat. The yellow arrow for southbound comes on shortly after the northbound green, but well before the southbound changes from red to green. Conversely, the northbound arrow switches from yellow to red when the northbound turns red, but then turns back to yellow a few seconds after the northbound arrow turns green. And in this state there is a law that motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles may, if they have been at a light for two minutes or one complete cycle of the light (whichever comes first) and not had their light turn green, may proceed as if at a yield sign. So that solves your slide into lawlessness. ;)
Started off disagreeing with taking the cameras away. Then when I realised they’re there to generate profit for a private company, I’m all for their removal. When it’s “for profit” it becomes no longer about safety. Also “$500? What the hell’s that all about?
Private companies make the vast majority of the things they make for profit, and doing so doesn't make the product less useful or less good. A product can be about safety regardless of whether the company makes a profit off of it. Of all the reasons to change your mind on red light cameras, that's not a good one.
@@PolarTrance True but roads and the infrastructure around them should never be privately owned. They are an essential public service. Same should apply to rail. Energy supply and many other things.
@@grahamlive You are correct. And what is MADDENING is these things WERE publicly owned entities. Until the 1980's when Americans were sold the dream of privatization. Now a few get rich off of what was once owned by the public.
I have seen a news story about a city that changed how the cameras issued tickets specifically to compensate for the loss of revenue because they were working. I believe they contract there was that the company that owned the cameras got X% or a specific payment from the city, whichever was more. Tickets had dropped off to where the city was going to have to start paying. They had data that showed, if I recall correctly, that the vast majority of accidents were caused by cars running a light 5 seconds or more after it changed, so they had put in a 3 second "grace period" - the cameras would only photograph cars running the light more than 3 seconds after it changed. But because of the loss of revenue, they were shortening the grace period. It isn't about companies making profit: nearly everything is made by a company making a profit. Police cars and school buses are made by companies that make a profit, and there are systems designed to keep those profits "reasonable" (not that we shouldn't be monitoring those). But when cities are choosing the placement of cameras or the rules for what qualifies for a fine with an eye for generating revenue, things have gone horribly wrong,
And that's the sad part. As someone who has followed the farce that red light and speed cameras were and are, that is all I have ever seen. It is almost never about safety for those "in the know" but making numbers work. That's it.
Wow... I'm really impressed by the production quality of this video. I felt like I was watching a traditional TV news special. I really enjoyed this. Definitely liking and subscribing!
A former editor for Motorcycle Consumer News had a fraudulent red light ticket thrown out after he proved mathematically that his position in each photo did not match the cameras company's claim. The judge factored in the fact that the camera co. received a substantial percentage of every guilty plea.
The city of fullerton got sued and removed them shortly afterwards. Around the same time, my grandfather got a ticket for a rolling right turn in whittier and i helped him fight it. On the court date, the ticket was automatically dismissed. My guess they got sued as well since the cameras where also removed days before the court date
As a traffic school instructor of 30 years, and known professionally as "The Traffic Guy," I'm quite familiar with the rise and fall of the red light cameras. When you mentioned West Hollywood, it brought back a memory. In the late 1990s when the red light cameras were about to debut in WeHo, I was doing a talk radio show in L.A. that focused on driving issues. So, needless to say, my co-host and I were invited to a "Red Light Camera Launch Party" for the press at one of several WeHo camera locations. Balloons, food, beverages...all to celebrate the city's new cash generators!
I worked for a large company that ordered 450 balloons just before they broke off that division and sold it to the main competitor, who locked the doors on the entire sales division when they showed up for work that monday. The balloons were a cheap way of convincing the employees to keep going right up until the purchase. 6 months prior to the 'name change' they required all the employees to sell their stock, which was then vacuumed up by the company itself. I am sure they knew the exact moment the bulk went up for sale. I was there 1 year. At that 6 month mark they made them sell their stock back. Obama was elected. Crash happened. All of my 401k was bought just after the crash and matched by the company. By the time I cashed it out, it was worth 4x what I put in to it during that period. If you are a usa citizen, it is your RIGHT to own a brokerage account. It also gives you a bird eye view on business and politics. I wasn't one of the ones that monday.
My uncle in the panhandle of Nebraska got a toll violation ticket for some toll booth in New York several years ago. The automated license plate system seemed to think that the license plate number belonged to his car. He's never been to New York. This isn't a red light camera but it's the same kind of thing: failed automation, failed citizenry.
I literally got into an argument about this during a road trip this week. I have always thought of the Cameras as revenue generators. The profit split with the manufacturers is extremely surprising to me and cements that thought in my head. Thanks for the video Rob. Great information as always!
Still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be red light cameras if they really do reduce accident rates. They should have just fixed the perverse incentives with the whole money making aspect. They are throwing away the baby with the bathwater.
Even if you split the profit, it's still generating money for the city. If a private company pays to install the camera, even if the city only gets like 30% of the money after the company and state get their cut, the city is still making money they wouldn't have at no cost to them (assuming you don't have a minimum revenue clause built into the contract with the camera company).
Lucky you can stop that revenue generators, by just following the law. Strange thing that manufacturers get a little of the money, but knowing that tax for road use is otherwise in the US I understand that some states do this. In The Netherlands I pay to use the road, so I'm allowed do drive on it and with that money they can fix/upgrade the road. Amount differs per car by weight, 2nd car I paid 204,- per quarter and now 82.-
@@TohaBgood2 The manufacturer poisoned the well with the public. There was active collusion taking place, where the goal was not to create a safer traffic outcome, but to generate money that would be used to pay for the aforementioned tech and pay the government. Any kind of benefit of the doubt afforded the use of the tech is likely irreparably damaged, and justifiably so. Even if that didnt persuade you, then ponder this: Why is the redlight cam tech after year 2000 still so expensive it needs to be effectively "leased"? Why wouldn'tve it become affordable in the last 20 years to have the city owning that tech still?
Rob thank you for this follow up story to red light cameras. It was super informative and extremely timely given the number of red light runners there seem to be. I’m talking about the straight through type. I just wanted to let you know that the story of on ramp lights was never finished. The minis oat experiment to remove them was only hinted to in your video never fully explored.
This is actually a thing in China! The length of the green, yellow, and red are all displayed in a countdown next to the light. Not sure if it can be implemented in the US since a lot of intersections (especially in suburban areas) rely on loop detectors and other methods to change the length of a green or red depending on the traffic.
I'd love to see this. The closest so far is seeing the countdown of the pedastrian "don't walk" sign - that's assuming there even is a visible countdown.
In Russia all new lights show duration of green and red remaining. There isn't usually a predatory behavior with camera placement (unless it's a private speedcam) because the fines aren't generating much revenue due to smaller fines. Camera placement is usually in places with high risk of major accidents. Local highway near my town has 3 speedcams on the way to the next city over, all 3 are at bus stop crosswalks.
Thank you for providing such high quality information to the people. You single-handedly improve public traffic policy just a little bit with every video you release.
In the Phoenix area all the 'red light' cameras are also speed cameras. Go through the intersection at more than 10 HPH over the speed limit on a green light it is a ticket. Mesa and Scottsdale also do mid-block (not intersection) cameras. Scottsdale is in long straightaways. Mesa is common in the 35 MPH school zone (not sure what if any threshold there is on those). At one time we even had speed cameras on the freeways, that was outlawed fairly quickly. In the last week the AZ Legislator is trying to push through a bill which would ban the cameras all together.
We have automobiles the safest, fastest and most efficient as they’ve ever been. So we lower speed limits to walking pace because we can’t be bothered to make sure drivers are actually competent… 🤦♂️
@@miles5600 What is bankrupting them? You’re saying that having a 300HP vehicle that can haul several in relative comfort with all of their stuff and still return 25+ MPG isn’t efficient?
@@troyjollimore4100 You're right about the automobiles. However the US doesn't have disciplined drivers. Traffic calming forces drivers to slow down and pay attention (hopefully).
I just drove through DT LA a couple days ago. There are so many intersections there where, during the middle of the day, especially left turns, it’s almost impossible to make it through the light without going during that gap between when your light changes and the cross traffic starts moving. Some of the red light running I saw was very excessive and inexcusable, but there were some instances where I had to run red lights because I had already been sitting at the light through several cycles. Very poor city planning in my opinion.
When you are the first car in line, you "take the intersection". This means you pull out into the intersection when you have the green light, but you don't begin your left turn yet. When the light turns red, you have already entered the intersection on green and you have the right to complete your left turn legally. Always take that intersection. This is taught to every commercial truck driver. Left turns in a tractor trailer would never happen without this technique.
@@the_mowron I grew up in OC with some well designed spacious cities. When I married and moved to Long Beach, my wife had to teach me how to take the intersection. It felt very weird at first but now that I’ve lived in LA county for 7 years I can’t imagine driving any other way.
As stated by the City of Los Angeles Council - July 31, 2011 @ 12:00 AM Red Light Camera plugs were pulled out ! It's been 10 plus years since that day. I noticed on 1st Street & Mission Road going East Bound towards Boyle Heights there are still signages & cameras still attached to poles. This is the place LA Metro Train goes through. Why is that ?
@@the_mowron Yup, was taught to drive like this since the CA suburb I grew up in had a lot of unprotected left turns. You enter the intersection when it's green so you aren't running a red, but sit there until it's yellow/ just turning red so you can make your turn without traffic interference.
I think this is a very important message that needs to spread. This needs to expand to speed cameras as well. New York City has implemented the most egregious camera program I have ever run across and I have fears this is going to spread across New York and the nation. The red light camera program on Long Island needs to come to an immediate end.
They have been ruled unconstitutional around the country. Who can you question in court? Who can prove that YOUR car and YOU were there? It's a violation of Due Process, a right we ALL to face and question our accuser
@@mrmotofy So, security camera footage can't be used then? I can rob a bank and if I get away I'm scot free because you can't use that camera's footage against me? Or does it just apply to drivers?
@@harshbarj Criminal law has a very different level of evidence than a traffic ticket. But there's similarities. If they don't have any other evidence other than a bank robber in a mask and say yes this the John Doe Bank Robber...very unlikely to get a conviction. They will work much harder to find evidence for a bank robbery especially since the Feds get involved. A red light ticket...they don't care so much for that $75 they might receive from it. I never said video can't be used...but they have to prove WHO the driver is...not just oh it's John Doe's car must be him. Or beyond a reasonable doubt the individual was in the car. For a bank robbery they may get a plate from every vehicle seen leaving the area, then get cell phone records...now they have an identity, then they check bank records. A walmart worker making $500/wk suddenly deposits $30k in cash when they've never done that before. Now they have a real suspect...then you get hauled in and interrogated. Then you can't explain where you just got the lump of cash. As they compare your size/weight to the bank video evidence and it matches...then they take it to court and let a jury decide is this the guy or not. In a traffic case like a red light or illegal turn...they won't waste that much time.
I’ve trained myself to focus on the red light or stop sign and obey them first feeling my car stop. THEN, I look at traffic and my opportunity to safely proceed.
I do the same, one task at a time is better for stops, preparing for what is immediately in front of you. So annoying seeing people slow enough to see you coming and think, "oh crap I got to get in front of that person," then pull in front of you and immediately stop in the middle of the highway! I don't think red light camera's are the way to go though. I end up floring it any time I'm in the in between spot. Only concern I have then is not to get a ticket.
@@Eric_Tennant I haven't seen a red light camera on a highway on ramp yet. I don't mind those too much as they should only come on when there is heavy traffic on the highway.
When I moved a few years ago, I was surprised to find a stack of almost a dozen red light tickets in my mail, all arrived at once for turning right on red at the same intersection. Ended up having them all thrown out because the intersection was not properly signed to indicate it was photo enforced.
Ontario introduced red light cameras some time ago. The difference here is that traffic tickets are a Provincial Offense, and ticket revenue goes to the general coffers of the province, not the municipality. That's why we don't have "speed trap towns". (although, that doesn't mean the O.P.P. doesn't set up where the speed limit changes coming into a town) Having revenue going to the camera company, and to the municipality is a systemic conflict of interest which any honest decision maker would have seen from the start and rejected out of hand.
Albany, NY set up 30 cameras. They expected 1mil/yr, but never saw a dime. The company takes their cut per camera and it never went above it. They also have to have a police officer sign off on it. If you get it a ticket, you really ran a light.
But we do have speed cameras as well as artificially low speed limits where 99.99% of all drivers, including police exceed. They are going to be much more common going forward as they are a much bigger scam/ revunue generator.
True, and don't get me started on speed limits here, I'm irked at the mere mention. I pity the odd American driving on the 401 at 100kph speed limit and wondering why they're getting all the unfriendly stink eye.
@@timothylegg Well, I wouldn't say Canada is a bright light on that score, either, but I agree, it seems to be just the way business is done in the States.
Just saw this video in my feed so I'm not familiar with this channel at all, but holy crap you're a good presenter. The editing of this video was amazing as well.
I live in South Carolina. Apparently we have a law that bans red light cameras! Who knew! A lot of cities/towns have cameras at intersections but I suppose it is only for accidents or traffic reports? I don't run red lights so have no did not realize the cameras were not for red light cameras. Sweet video! I subscribed.
People not stopping for right on red make biking on roadside multi-use trails with crossrides incredibly dangerous, that's why I've switched to riding on the street.
I have had a car turning right on red run over my bike as I crossed in a crosswalk on a clearly marked bicycle path/sidewalk. I managed to get off my bike as it was pushed under the car. I agree with both sides here: failing to stop before a right on red is not a victimless crime, and needs widespread enforcement to stem the tide of people for whom it has become habitual. Same for stopping blocking the crosswalk, or really any stop that is not wholly behind the stop line as required by law. We have gotten to where many pedestrians cannot or will not cross if there are cars trying to turn right. But it isn't nearly as big a crime as the people who blow straight through a red light at the speed limit, and the punishment should not be the same.
This video just shows how crazy car centric the US is. Fuck bikes, fuck pedestrians. They are not seen equal to car drivers. That sucks. All the arguments about "but there is nobody around, why should I be ticketed when doing a rolling right on red?" - yeah, why not continue right straight through the intersection, if there's a red light and there's nobody around? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to see and understand the whole situation within fractions of a second, especially without stopping! So stupid and dangerous. (The funding going partly to a private company, though...)
@@spyone4828 Not just for pedestrians, but stopping behind the line is important in tight intersections for semis and busses to make left turns. Nobody seems to care that those lines are there for a reason. That's why whenever I pull up behind someone who's stopped over the crosswalk, I leave plenty of room between us, so that if the situation arises where they're forced to accept that they're an idiot and have to back up out of the way, they can do so without having to wait for a long line of cars behind them to back up in turn.
@@angelgjr1999 Right on red is legal, but at least here in Ontario you have to first come to a stop behind the stop line. Most people rocket into the pedestrian and bike crossing, only looking left for car traffic, intending not to stop at all if there's no cars in the way. Not a second of thought for pedestrians or cyclists.
What an interesting video. I had never even considered these cameras could be used for anything other than stopping red light running. Also, I suddenly want to play GTA5.
Please more perspectives from people who walk or bike and how it interferes with them. I love that you included one in this video, but even more is better :)
I've almost been hit while walking by SO many people that roll through red lights on right hand turns. I'm personally all for traffic cameras enforcing the law.
The simple fact that cities using cameras shortened the yellow light interval is all you need to know about their stated "concern for safety". Governments/politicians/bureaucrats don't care about you.
Maybe if there was no profit incentive, they would actually time the yellows long enough for the red light cameras to not be a problem. The cameras are a good idea; Incentivizing manufacturers to create unsafe signalling is not
Yep! It looks to me like the red light cameras did work. But once you mix all the perverse incentives, the cities basically started misusing them to milk more money to pay for the camera contract. But that only happened because delinquency rates dropped to nothing. That's objectively a good thing! They should have kept the cameras and fixed the perverse incentives instead. This was a dumb fix to a dumb problem that the cities created themselves.
@@TohaBgood2 Delinquency rates are not zero. The story though doesn't surprise me in the least. I know of at least one such intersection with such a stupid camera nearby .. catching rolling right turns where there is usually not much else going on. Safety should win, not money-making. For the dangerous right turns .. the best remedy seems to be to make the turn more sharp, eliminate the right-turn yield-bypass. Voila, and doesn't even need a camera.
In fact, Chicago has a large red light camera (and speed camera) system, and almost every yellow light is timed to 3.0 seconds - the bare minimum recommended for a signed 30 mph road. With drivers often going 35 - 40 mph on the wider arterial roads, the short yellow lights create a larger dilemma zone, leading to more tickets (not to mention leaving less time for pedestrians and cyclists to make it across the street during a yellow light). By contrast, the adjacent suburb of Oak Park has streets in a similar urban environment (25 - 30 mph), and their yellow lights are 4.0 - 4.5 seconds long, which gives more time for drivers to make a decision whether or not to stop at the yellow light.
Those might increase but these cameras significantly reduce both T-bone and pedestrian fatalities. Over there is a significant safety benefit when applied to dangerous intersections.
Americans really dont like it when people break or slow down as rear end collision is bad in america everywhere else people just stop or slow down as seen so many dash cam vids on youtube of americans just full speed rear end people as brake lights means nothing to them think the driving test for licence needs to change and teach more people about braking when car in front slows or stops that will solve that issue.
I don't know if the rule has changed, but when I was young, California allowed a right turn without stopping as long as it was safe to make the turn. hence the common term, "california stop" to refer to such a right turn.
I would think, red light would work as Stop sign. On a Stop sign, you must stop regardless, and so would be the ligic here, and actually even more so because traffic light means more traffic concerns than those at local Stop signs.
The rule hasn't changed, because it has never been allowed. What people do in practice is not the same as what the law states. CVC has never allowed for a "rolling" stop. Stop means stop. There's no such thing as a rolling stop.
The biggest point of this story is how willfully ignorant those politicians were. To vote unanimously against traffic cameras after a civilian brought some data forward really shows how little they look into things they vote on without outside influence.
In my burg, the first two tickets issued got thrown out of court because a lawyer showed up to dispute the system. Later the city got caught shortening the length of the yellow lights to increase the probability of red-light runners. The first two locations were not the locations with the greatest amount of crashes. The two locations were the primary access points to our burg's version of the ghetto. The company which owned the system was headquartered in Europe and they got most of the revenue generated from the tickets. Columbia, MO no longer has any red-light runner cameras.
The root problem is that governments like using money collected through fines, penalties and enforcement of the rules to fund government services because it allows them to have better services without having to raise taxes or cut finding elsewhere. And its a lot more politically acceptable to say that they are raising revenue from people who are breaking the law than that they are raising revenue through increased taxes. This isn't limited to just money raised from traffic tickets and infringements but also enforcement of building codes and all kinds of other things.
In the UK we've been GATSO'd to fkk for years. If you get a ticket in the post, you have to state who was driving. Failure to do so will land you in court. But, despite hearing for years how they are 'Safety Cameras' and how it's all about 'Road Safety', everyone knows it's for Revenue. The Safety data just doesn't back up the claims. Some regional areas have vastly reduced the number of cameras, stating in many cases that they 'can't afford to process the tickets'. City centres however remain both a minefield, and a goldmine.
4) No revenue sharing agreements. They are a clear conflict of interest. Cities should buy the cameras outright. Sure, this is expensive, but I'd rather have a situation where the city knows they have the money to put in , say, 3 cameras and looks at where they will be most effective than peppering the city with dozens and dozens of "free" cameras tuned to generate maximum revenue.
It kinda has the same problem. Do you think the city is going to put those three cameras where they will prevent the most accidents, or where they will issue the most tickets? Cities have come to view law enforcement, especially traffic laws, as a way to make money. And that needs to stop. There is a town in Ohio that has no taxes at all, and generates its entire income by issuing traffic tickets on a couple of miles of Interstate highway that passes through town. It has been that way for decades.
@@spyone4828 Well, the first point in the video is that cities should not be allowed to touch the money. But personally, I think letting the state government squander it or letting it collect dust forever isn't great. Rather, it should be paid out to the city's victims of red light runners. Basically, if you're injured by someone who ran a red light in that city, you get a cut of the fines collected. If that's not possible, maybe use it for a program to buy school supplies for children or something. But whatever is done with it, *not one cent* can go to the city police department budget. Basically, traffic enforcement needs to be viewed as an expense designed to increase safety. Even trying to frame it as revenue-neutral is problematic.
Also, the pervasive "small town foists its public expenses onto unsuspecting motorists" problem has to stop. While I don't have a solution, I do know it is due in large part to decades of systematic industrial disinvestment in rural America. These towns are doing this not just out of greed, but because they and their residents have no money to pay for their public infrastructure needs, there are no tourists and no real industry, so traffic enforcement is their last available avenue to balance the budget.
A city near me installed red light cameras and got public approval by saying that they were only a $40 fine with 0 points... Then 2 years later raised the fine to a standard red light infraction ($200+). Then they shortened the yellow light time to 3s on all of the lights to catch more that weren't quite making it through in time.
This has got me thinking, is there a real safety benefit to instructing a complete stop at intersections with good visibility? When I'm from (the UK) the philosophy is stop signs should only be put in when the junction is exceptionally dangerous, usually because the view of the main road is restricted. I can only think of one junction in my local areas that has one, all the rest are yield (or "give way" as we call it). Drivers are expected to slow down usually to speeds below 15 mph, and learners are instructed to do so. Effectively we make "rolling stops" legal on 99% of junctions and rely on drivers good judgment. Then again, we don't allow left on red so we're not necessarily more lenient.
Every municipality should need to pay $10K per year per stop sign. 90% of stop signs are a indication of a road design failure, so the money should go into a fund to mitigate those failures.
American drivers don't know what yield/"give way" means. If they actually yielded to pedestrians and cyclists, then fine, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, many intersections in my area actually do have yield signs for the slip lanes for right turns, which overrides the stop requirement. But drivers don't actually yield at them, except to other drivers (because that might hurt their precious car).
@@blakeh95 I wish I could upvote this more. As a pedestrian I've been hit on the sidewalk by cars coming out of driveways that were only looking for other cars.
@@HweolRidda I wish they'd at least put in stop bars across the road. I've been caught out in the US before not seeing the STOP sign because I'm so used to seeing markings in the road (luckily my passenger pointed it out!).
I've been driving in LA for 23 years and let me tell you the vast majority motorist are pretty good drivers. Sure, there are a percentage who are oblivious to their surrounds, but most are pretty "spot on" and act accordingly or everyone's commute will be a nightmare. I see thousands of cars every day and commute many miles, but accidents are actually rare which is amazing considering the environment and the potential for hazards. Red light cameras were nothing more than government fleecing its citizens for money everyone knows that.
Things must have changed a LOT since the last time I drove in LA. The traffic, and the kamikaze drivers, was more than enough to convince me to never go back. Of course, I wouldn't go ANYWHERE in the People's Democratic Republic of Mexifornia anymore, so I guess it's a moot point.
For many places, it was not even the complaints of civilians ticketed that shut down the red-light camera program. It was maintaining and renewing the contract with Redflex, ATS, etc., that was a pain. To tje point where the engineer's primary duty was to maintain the program.
Seems like a lot of the problems with red light cameras being revenue magnets and the safety of cyclists and pedestrians is two fold on this one: Make revenue sharing agreements for law enforcement illegal. End turns on red and yield on green, make all turns require a green arrow; don't allow green lights on conflicting pedestrian or bicycle movements. Program signal controllers to give greens/walks to the most people (not vehicles, people) waiting. Yeah, this means the direction with a bus coming is going to get a green longer than anything except a train or emergency vehicle. Yes, this means turning the light yellow the moment the last vehicle crosses the line. Yes, this means starting to flash the signal don't-walk when the last person leaves the curb and keep it flashing until the last person reaches the other side. The technology exists and is already widely deployed in parts of the world. If this is too much work, then your intersection's too large or you really should be using a roundabout instead. Make vehicle owners legally liable for actions taken by people they let drive their vehicle. The Dutch figured this one out decades ago.
These cameras are everywhere in Germany. Most cities virtually shut down at night. I got a ticket at 2am for speeding 8mph over the limit on a completely deserted city street (38mph in an 30mph zone). My wife got a ticket for not wearing her seatbelt while moving her car from one parking space to another (50ft). Those tickets weren't cheap. Was so glad to get back to the states where laws and law enforcement were a little more tolerant. Sadly, America has changed.
As someone who enjoys walking around cities, the rolling right turn on red is super dangerous and needs to stop. It's super common so I don't know the best way to enforce it.
When I lived in Texas there was an intersection that had a camera which was removed after the state prohibited enforcement of such tickets but the bizarre light timing remained. It was a T intersection with not even a private driveway across the top of the T but that direction got a short green then red when the opposing direction got a green.
Fife, WA realized how much they were making off their first camera, they installed a handful more, focusing on dinging right turn on red violators. They also installed a speed camera on a road that has no posted speed limit.
the other change I would make with photo enforcement would be that the citation is issued against the vehicle, not the driver. the vehicle gets the fine, the vehicle gets points against its license, and if the vehicle doesn't pay the citation, the vehicle goes to jail. I was told about this detail by a person from a scandanavian country, and he said it works well to reduce the misbehavior.
Only works with vehicles that are actually _worth_ any money. In that program, beaters will get impounded, their "owners" wouldn't do anything to get them back (just buy another cheap beater that costs far less than releasing the last one), and since their only real value at that point is scrap, so the municipality is out quite a bit of money that will likely never be recovered from the offender (that unfortunately would never get recovered short of forced servitude for failure to pay the fine in any other circumstance).
I do agree that getting a $500 ticket for rolling a right-on-red at 2 a.m is very frustrating, but I think that getting into the mentality of "its no big deal if no one is there" can be pretty dangerous too. Most people don't run over pedestrians and cyclists on purpose (I hope), they run them over because they likely didn't see them, because they are easy to miss. So when people get into the idea of "oh there's no one around, I can be a bit careless", well it can lead to bad habits. just because you didn't see someone, it doesn't mean they're not there. And you'd be surprised how often this happens. I ride an e-scooter and pretty much every other day I come close to being hit by someone turning right. It happened so often that I had to fit literal car horns on my scooter. I always ride facing opposite to traffic so I'm never behind drivers, and I have an extremely bright light on my scooter which is brighter than the average halogen light on a car, yet people still don't see me.
Yeah, l noticed it a couple of times that the driver wasn't even looking at me at the crossing when I was right in front of him, but rather looking to the left when turning right. Surprised no one is talking about forbidding right turns on red altogether
I believe there is a general problem with American drivers not thinking that its their responsibility to avoid running over pedestrians. that said if drivers already are not looking for you then "its no big deal if no one is there" is less dangerous because it implies that they looked to see if anyone was there
People who are against red light cameras are drivers who want to run red light cameras. If you walk, bicycle, or ride a motorcycle (or an electric scooter in your case), then you're completely for red light cameras because a 3000 to 6000 pound car hurts a lot. Basically, it's drivers who want to drive through red lights.
I agree that in *some* cases the city was simply using this as a money grab, but I disagree with the part about right on red. The law says you must come to a complete stop, and it's very dangerous for drivers to be cutting corners on that rule. By doing rolling stops, drivers risk hitting people in crosswalks because they aren't stopping to check for blindspots. Overall, red light cameras are DEFINITELY good for cities, as long as the intersection has been designed properly.
I can't believe how gullible some people are. This was never about safety. If it was, other less costly methods would have been used. This was about raising money from fines.
I love to watch Road Guy Rob’s videos. Just so I can stand back in awe about how absolutely everything is just so wrong about the US road system. The UK system isn’t perfect but my god, it’s 100 times safer than what you guys over there have to put up with.
@@Fools_Requiem Honestly, that would likely make the whole system more bloated and confusing, especially in America. What exactly does it mean for someone to be there? Everyone has their own interpretation. Then we'll have 50 pages of descriptions of what it means for someone to be there, each with varying fine amounts. Every time someone gets a ticket they will try to argue their fine should be from section 3c rather than 1a etc.
Similar to that are speed limit signs near schools that say "School zone - 25 mph limit when children are present." I never know what "are present" actually means in that case. (What if a kid is 100/200/300 yards away, or down a side street? Or if a lone kid is sitting down on the grass nearby when school is not in session? ) But they have that very arbitrary and ill-defined law in almost every town in the country.
As an LA driver you best believe the cameras caused more issues than they solved. 1 we all sped through like maniacs trying to avoid the camera 2 because of this accidents and near misses became a thing 3 lots of road rage against other drivers and pedestrians who “blocked”traffic in the middle of the intersection 4 everyone would break in yellow 5 it caused severe distractions when a flash went off in a busy intersection and all traffic would flinch at the possibility of getting dinged. 6 after the removal the dead cameras kept up 1-5 going on for years, besides being an eyesore
What we need are Yield light cameras because I've hardly ever seen anyone stop at a Yield sign. And talking to some people about this, people think yield means to merge.
I never thought fines were a good way of handling traffic violations. Fines are by their very nature too punishing to low income people, and not punishing enough for high income people. I don't like living in a society where a rich person can act however they like because they can afford to do it.
The cost is incredibly inconvenient, but the benefit is negligible. Usually it's just another stream of revenue for the government. I think the Freakanomics book touched on the phenomenon of monetary punishment, where they found that people who had to pay off a punishment treated it like a standard transaction. If it's too expensive, you avoid the activity or do a better job at not getting caught, while if it's relatively affordable to you, you would just be more reckless when you know you can pay it off. IMO traffic violations in general should be reevaluated to see what actually causes accidents (usually, some kind of loss of control) and how better to prevent them. The current solution is incredibly flawed, where you have to try not to be the last in a line of cars on the freeway because traffic is moving above the speed limit and a cop could randomly stop the last car he can catch.
I once got a speeding ticket from a red light camera (in my city red light cameras give tickets for both red light violations and speeding on green). At the intersection before the camera, the road drops from 80km/hr to 60km/hr. There is no change in road design to encourage you to lower your speed, just a simple sign that I hadn't seen (and after looking at historic images on Google Streetview, I found that this intersection used to be 80km/hr as well until relatively recently). To make it worse, immediately after this intersection, this road merges onto a major highway, meaning drivers are preparing to match the speed of the 100km/hr highway. So a road drops from 80km/hr to 60km/hr only to jump up to 100km/hr, for no apparent reason, and the only enforcement of this speed reduction is a simple sign and a red light camera? And to make it worse still, I was driving home from work, and my tickets was larger than my paycheque for the day. This was just preying on poor people with no other option then to drive to work on roads designed for speeds in great excess to what is posted.
I remember while ago was a story of one of the first cameras were installed in Washington DC, if I am not mistaken, that was keep on writing citations wrong. They took down the camera, but people never got their money back. So I would like to know more about who was responsible for that and how they solved that issue. Thank you for your unbiased opinion.
Just end right turns on red. Nobody is doing it properly and safely. Bad habits of rolling through red lights at 2am is what creates accidents with pedestrians and cyclists at 2pm. Rolling on red to turn right should be strictly prohibited and enforced if red turns on red is allowed to continue. Also allow right turns on red creates dangerous situations for pedestrians and cyclists as vehicles unnecessarily roll out (and many times without proper looking) and occupying the safe crossing areas.
This was a pretty milquetoast report for RUclips. I found it both frustrating because I know a lot of the unadulterated evil involved behind the cameras, and refreshing because the truth is seriously click baitey. I’m familiar with one of the companies, ATS, because I worked with and observed the company that created it. Those people had serious ethical challenges. Their reputation was that they “bought” the business with their entertainment budgets which were quite lavish. Like private jets to golf tournaments lavish. So then ATS is created to sell products to public officials. Hmm, what could go wrong? Well, re engineering of intersections to increase violations is what eventually went wrong. It starts with using a camera at a problem intersection which needs a timing or physical change to reduce the likelihood of violations (dangerous accidents), and eventually it evolves to changing the timing or infrastructure at an intersection to actually increase violations. Yep, let’s induce accidents to make a buck! Yay! The topper came in Houston, TX where the worst mayor in its history, Mayor White, ended up bribing a Rice University professor (I should look him up, but he gets a pass today) to redo a study into the camera effectiveness after it showed problems. Who could foresee that a politician would end up bribing a professor? I didn’t see that coming, but if you’ve ever been videotaped, you know it doesn’t usually make you your best self. Hey, I have an idea, let’s start an internet company to make money off embarrassing videos! 🤣😂🤣😂
Some states like Tennessee have deemed traffic camera tickets as unconstitutional. When you receive a violation caught from a camera in the mail, it says you don’t have to pay it.
@@jaybeeber4691 Really? Because at 10:05 he says, verbatim, "It's that person getting that ticket at $500 at 2 o'clock in the morning when no one's around, or even the middle of the day when no one's around."
@@hippynothipster "...That shouldn't be getting a $500 ticket". Not advocating that "it's fine to run right on red". That was never said and claiming it was, and then arguing against it is a classic straw man argument.
This is nearly purely a California thing in the first place, which is hilarious. I live next door in AZ and it's very rare to roll a right turn. Idk if it's more blind corners, less traffic, or what, but it just feels incredibly unsafe to not stop and check your left before turning on a red.
I love red light cameras. Im a pretty tame and safe driver, but if I see one of these lights I either slam on the brakes and put the cars behind me in danger, or floor it in my fast car and go through the intersection going 55 so im 100% sure I dont get a ticket. Totally makes the roads safer.
As stated by the City of Los Angeles Council - July 31, 2011 @ 12:00 AM Red Light Camera plugs were pulled out ! It's been 10 plus years since that day. I noticed on 1st Street & Mission Road going East Bound towards Boyle Heights there are still signages & cameras still attached to poles. This is the place LA Metro Train goes through. Why is that ?
Here in Tennessee we have red light cameras (and speed cameras). We also have a state law that says if you get a red-light ticket you do not have to pay and the city that put it up cannot come after you to collect. Basically if you pay the ticket it is a donation. The reason being is the evidence is sent to a third party to generate the ticket and the ticket is issued against the owner of the car whether they were driving or not. So basically a driver has to prove his innocence rather than the government having to prove guilt. So screw your red light cameras.
If there's a YIELD sign , it means Slow down and prepare to stop if necessary, otherwise keep moving. No stop on Red involved. The signs/ lights are contrary to traffic flow and impede vehicular movement. We are currently experiencing this scenario in our town . The problem is not all programs take into consideration holidays, summer school, weekends, or weather related absences. This causes traffic jams in many cases and seems unproductive unless you're the companies involved in installing or removing said devices
In other countries they use a double flashing yellow light before the red comes on. I find that a countdown just like your countdown for walking will be helpful
At one point in my career one of the counties that we oversaw wanted to install a new red light camera. They asked us (transportation department) to help come up with some good locations. I made a heatmap of all angle (t-bone) collisions and listed the most severe intersections for them. The local police department proceeded to completely ignore that list and advocated for placing the camera at one of the most congested, but low crash severity intersections in the county, making me realize that all they cared about was how many tickets they could write and they didn't care about the safety impact at all.
thats sad
It's ridiculous that the police get the money.
Policing for profit.
It’s the same reason why the police will proceed to enact “speed enforcement” and pull radar on straight, tree-lined freeways with a 70 MPH speed limit, but they won’t do the same on residential thoroughfares that pass by schools and playgrounds.
It’s all for potential revenue, not safety of the public.
Maybe they thought that the busier intersections had more violations, and therefore we’re less safe?
That's why I'm highly against quotas in police the US tends to have quotas for police officers because they make more money that way. On the flip side Japan tends to do the opposite and has quotas against arresting people and etc. Police job should just be what it's supposed to be and it is about protecting public safety and nothing more there should be no quotas.
What's that about this too is cameras can actually be beneficial especially when a crime has recently been taken place they can be used to help either find a missing child. But instead they're used more often for petty offenses.
I remember a news story that said a California town installed red light cameras, then reduced the yellow light time to increase the number of violations. The result was drivers began standing on their brakes anytime a light turned yellow, leading to an increase in rear-end collisions at the intersections.
Common Florida problem--short yellow followed by excessively long red.
@@Dallas_K on a timed light with noone at the other intersection? That shit just irks me
Aurora, Colorado did the same thing. Reduced the yellow light time. Finally the people voted to get rid of red light cameras. Suddenly the yellow light time increased.
Yep, a lot of rear-end collisions due to slamming brakes at yellow lights
Well there you go it's my all about the money
In my opinion, police funding should be entirely separate from tickets. We need to incentivize the police to keep us safe, not to fit their monthly quota
If an incentive to police traffic laws is desired, perhaps a bonus based on lower traffic accidents and fewer road deaths.
@@bearcubdaycare That actually sounds like a good idea
@@bearcubdaycare Exactly! If you want to use incentives to achieve a particular goal, then why no base the incentives on the actual goal itself!
I'm sure that there are plenty of ways for this to backfire too, but why not try it?
@@TohaBgood2 because it was never about the safety
Maybe we should knock off the "defund the police" crap...
I remember that in Southern California, one of the first cities to get red light cameras was either Pasadena, or South Pasadena. One issue that made the news was a man who got a red light camera ticket when he was out of town. I think that back then (1980s) he had to go to the city or police station to see the photo. He saw in the photo a man who wasn’t himself driving his car with his wife in the passenger seat. It was how he discovered his wife was cheating on him.
good call.
Should’ve pressed the police to arrest them for joyriding his vehicle. It’s his car, his insurance, not to mention his woman.
@@OkieDokieSmokie
His woman was in the car. It was considered that she gave him permission. Nice try. That guy that was in the car should pay the tickets.
I'd be mad she was cheating and twice as mad she let him drive my car.
Dang!
I got ticketed by a red light camera in San Mateo, California, a couple of decades ago. I didn't even know I got ticketed until eight months after the incident, when I received a notice of fines and penalties amounting to over $800, which amounted to a whole week's salary then. I was outraged! After some initial flailing around on where to go to find out why I never even received a summons for my red light violation, I ended up at the City of San Mateo Police Department front counter, which happened to be in the building right at the intersection of the red light I supposedly ran. Turns out the violation summons was actually issued by a company from some state in the southwest, either Nevada or New Mexico, NOT by the San Mateo Police Department. At the time, I received my mail at my Post Office Box, not at my street address, which didn't even have a mailbox or delivery to one. The P. O. Box is listed on all my DMV documents as a secondary address, the street address being the primary address, and all DMV mail listed both. After speaking with the officer in charge of red light camera citations, I discovered they sent the summons to my street address only, not listing my secondary address, and I lit into him after that, pointing out that the return address on the summonses this private company in the southwest sent out, was to the San Mateo Police Department, so they would have received the undeliverable mail, and known I was not notified, and they should have investigated further. I pointed out that I received ALL notices from the DMV, driver's License and Registrations, and even the county clerk managed to find my correct address to bill me for all the fines and charges for non-appearance, so why couldn't their police department find me to make sure I was served? There was no answer for that, and I found, since I was already convicted and the case closed, there was no appealing the decision. The deadline for paying the fines was approaching, and I received no contact from the police, nor did they respond to my inquiries, so I paid the fine, and a week or two later contacted the court clerk for a transcript of my trial, as I decided to sue the City in small claims court to retrieve my money. That's when I found out the charges were dropped, so the case, effectively, never happened, and I received my money back from the county within a week or two. I appreciated that, but I wish they would have kept me informed of what was going on. And, by the way, it was a right turn on red, with no other cars or pedestrians in the intersection.
Houston citizens got rid of ours. vetoed the council and mayor.
When we revoked the red light cameras, Houston officials said they needed to make up $10Million in lost revenue to their budget. We citizens all just said, "I thought it was about safety and not revenue."
Houston's red light camera contract stated that the city would have had to pay penalties if the cameras were removed prematurely.
Later the state changed the laws for automated red light cameras so that there was no longer any penalty for not paying the fine.
@@mikew2928 I remember city had to pay penalty. I wanted politicians to be forced to pay it personally.
What pissed me off the most was them altering light timing at every one of those intersections.
Y'all remember how many trucks spilled loads?
40 tons can't stop that quick
Meanwhile in Humble, TX, literally 20 miles north of downtown Houston...
@@mwhitelaw8569 That happens a lot in which yellow lights have their timing reduced to generate more red-light tickets when red-light cameras are installed there.
I work in a law office. A couple years ago, an attorney who works there came in and said she's received a red light ticket from a camera near the office. The ticket had a link to video footage of the offense being committed. Sure enough, she had driven right through a red light without stopping, or hardly even slowing down for that matter.
The kicker is that she didn't realize that a red light meant she had to stop. She thought a red light only required her to yield. This was a licensed attorney saying this. It's mind blowing to me that there are drivers on the road who don't realize that you're required to stop at red lights.
I don't think it's honest ignorance. She made herself believe it because it suited the way she wanted to drive. That's kinda scary.
stopping on right at red is something I was taught at drivers ED where I used to live in North Carolina. I specifically remember the instructor saying "treat a red signal as a stop sign when turning right or you WILL be ticketed." and I have done this my whole life; always coming to a stop with cars even beeping their horns behind me even though it is still illegal where I live. The police, however, just happen to be a lot more relaxed about it and for good reason as this is not where effort in law enforcement should be placed.
I have never received a ticket of any kind, only one warning because I did not notice a speed reduction and the officer was actually very kind as she mentioned how often it happens there due to poor signage (the city later made it more obvious by moving the sign). so I am surprised that an "attorney" would not know this information about something as simple as right turn on red when that was literally the first thing I looked up under state law when I moved and in my case did not change. I still agree that this situation should be treated differently as there is much less risk involved in a right turn (assuming right hand traffic) so do not misunderstand me here. I am only questioning this individual's knowledge as an attorney and I would expect her to follow the law at least more precisely then I do given I have having no interest in practicing law.
Yes to make a right on Red, the signal works as "Stop" sign, meaning you must stop regardless of traffic/pedestrians or not, and then make right as you would do with Stop sign.
Yea maybe we shouldn't design our cities in such a way that makes it all but mandatory that people like her have to drive.
Just another self entitled case ofive been doing this for x amount of years and I know what I'm doing. It's like when you have a doctor who smokes and drinks.
We need to remove ALL revenue incentive from law enforcement! Whether it's civil asset forfeiture or red light cameras, government cannot come to depend on criminal activity as a source of revenue. That's WHY we pay taxes.
It's not about funding, purely about greed. There are police officers out there making a quarter million a year.
They create criminal activity by their unconstitutional laws.
If they made a law that said it was illegal to be named Paul you would be a criminal.
The government creates problems only to offer their solutions.
What kind of criminals don't depend on their crime for gain?
What kind a crime is that, crime for pleasure?
AMEN to that, brother! THAT is the real issue.
There never should be a profit involved. The money causes the corruption 100% of the time
What bugs me is when I see a green light and start to go through, and it goes yellow as I am in the intersection. So I instinctively start to slow down before realizing that if I stop I will be in the middle and so I accelerate to get through and see the light go red as I go under it. Then I am left wondering if I will get a ticket for weeks.
Same. That's been me since they got me the first time.
if you are in the middle while crossing it dosent get you but if you are right before it will
I lived in Belmont, CA when they dismantled all the red light cameras because data showed a significant increase in accidents, specifically, rear-ending type. The drivers were afraid to get a ticket for running on a yellow light and would slam the brakes causing a rear-ending.
Shoulda focused more on the cities that intentionally alter the light timing to generate more revenue. It's been documented multiple times. That 100% shoots a hole a truck can roll through into their claims that this is for safety. When you make the intersection less safe because you WANT people to run red lights, I believe you should be held criminally liable if something bad happens in that intersection.
City of Gulf Breeze in FL does this.
He already has a video on this subject.
@@Dani98664 Florida is notorious for this. We got a ticket for “running” a yellow light. Never going back to Florida.
Yeah, that light MIS-timing bs is ridiculous. A smooth flow of traffic is good for the economy. Deliveries are made more expediently, etc...
There is an intersection in Commerce, CA that does this. It would give the green light then start to change in something as short as 3 seconds.
The problem with a lot of these intersections is a lack of a green arrow when it is safe to roll through the turn.
so replace it with gridsmart
Some times the green arrow is a tyrant, at 2am you can just make a left turn, except this red light thinks it knows better for some reason. Motorcycles are not even detected by most lights because traffic engineers think they are a lesser people so you end up running lefts fairly often. Then your distinction between right and wrong starts to fade, then you join the Hell's Angels...
I suspect that's intentional. If they put in a green arrow, then they can't ticket those people for running the red light.
@@joshuaerickson2458 I have seen some new signals go up in my area - the left turn arrow can be red, green, or blinking yellow. A sign explains that the blinking yellow means that you are allowed to turn, but must yield to all other traffic so essentially turn at your own risk. For example, there is a nearby intersection where the main road has three settings: northbound and left turn arrow, north and southbound, then southbound and left turn arrow, then the side street, then repeat. The yellow arrow for southbound comes on shortly after the northbound green, but well before the southbound changes from red to green. Conversely, the northbound arrow switches from yellow to red when the northbound turns red, but then turns back to yellow a few seconds after the northbound arrow turns green.
And in this state there is a law that motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles may, if they have been at a light for two minutes or one complete cycle of the light (whichever comes first) and not had their light turn green, may proceed as if at a yield sign. So that solves your slide into lawlessness. ;)
@@spyone4828 it’s not intentional cause that’s not allowed, they have certain strict timings to follow
Started off disagreeing with taking the cameras away. Then when I realised they’re there to generate profit for a private company, I’m all for their removal. When it’s “for profit” it becomes no longer about safety. Also “$500? What the hell’s that all about?
Private companies make the vast majority of the things they make for profit, and doing so doesn't make the product less useful or less good. A product can be about safety regardless of whether the company makes a profit off of it. Of all the reasons to change your mind on red light cameras, that's not a good one.
@@PolarTrance True but roads and the infrastructure around them should never be privately owned. They are an essential public service. Same should apply to rail. Energy supply and many other things.
@@grahamlive You are correct. And what is MADDENING is these things WERE publicly owned entities. Until the 1980's when Americans were sold the dream of privatization. Now a few get rich off of what was once owned by the public.
I have seen a news story about a city that changed how the cameras issued tickets specifically to compensate for the loss of revenue because they were working. I believe they contract there was that the company that owned the cameras got X% or a specific payment from the city, whichever was more. Tickets had dropped off to where the city was going to have to start paying.
They had data that showed, if I recall correctly, that the vast majority of accidents were caused by cars running a light 5 seconds or more after it changed, so they had put in a 3 second "grace period" - the cameras would only photograph cars running the light more than 3 seconds after it changed.
But because of the loss of revenue, they were shortening the grace period.
It isn't about companies making profit: nearly everything is made by a company making a profit. Police cars and school buses are made by companies that make a profit, and there are systems designed to keep those profits "reasonable" (not that we shouldn't be monitoring those). But when cities are choosing the placement of cameras or the rules for what qualifies for a fine with an eye for generating revenue, things have gone horribly wrong,
And that's the sad part. As someone who has followed the farce that red light and speed cameras were and are, that is all I have ever seen. It is almost never about safety for those "in the know" but making numbers work. That's it.
Wow... I'm really impressed by the production quality of this video. I felt like I was watching a traditional TV news special. I really enjoyed this. Definitely liking and subscribing!
A former editor for Motorcycle Consumer News had a fraudulent red light ticket thrown out after he proved mathematically that his position in each photo did not match the cameras company's claim. The judge factored in the fact that the camera co. received a substantial percentage of every guilty plea.
In San Diego, the company installing the red light cameras was found to be shortening the yellow light times...
The city of fullerton got sued and removed them shortly afterwards. Around the same time, my grandfather got a ticket for a rolling right turn in whittier and i helped him fight it. On the court date, the ticket was automatically dismissed. My guess they got sued as well since the cameras where also removed days before the court date
I know this is a educational video, but I love how he uses GTA for some example videos😂
I was thinking I must play too much GTA 5. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this in a few clips.
well for simple street scenes it works, just wish trevor was driving car
As a traffic school instructor of 30 years, and known professionally as "The Traffic Guy," I'm quite familiar with the rise and fall of the red light cameras. When you mentioned West Hollywood, it brought back a memory. In the late 1990s when the red light cameras were about to debut in WeHo, I was doing a talk radio show in L.A. that focused on driving issues. So, needless to say, my co-host and I were invited to a "Red Light Camera Launch Party" for the press at one of several WeHo camera locations. Balloons, food, beverages...all to celebrate the city's new cash generators!
I worked for a large company that ordered 450 balloons just before they broke off that division and sold it to the main competitor, who locked the doors on the entire sales division when they showed up for work that monday. The balloons were a cheap way of convincing the employees to keep going right up until the purchase. 6 months prior to the 'name change' they required all the employees to sell their stock, which was then vacuumed up by the company itself. I am sure they knew the exact moment the bulk went up for sale. I was there 1 year. At that 6 month mark they made them sell their stock back. Obama was elected. Crash happened. All of my 401k was bought just after the crash and matched by the company. By the time I cashed it out, it was worth 4x what I put in to it during that period. If you are a usa citizen, it is your RIGHT to own a brokerage account. It also gives you a bird eye view on business and politics. I wasn't one of the ones that monday.
I'M THE TRAFFIC GUY...YOUR AN IMPOSTOR
@@harryballsacky Hardly, but whatever.
@@harryballsacky *you're
My uncle in the panhandle of Nebraska got a toll violation ticket for some toll booth in New York several years ago. The automated license plate system seemed to think that the license plate number belonged to his car. He's never been to New York.
This isn't a red light camera but it's the same kind of thing: failed automation, failed citizenry.
why don’t people just… stop at red lights before turning right?
14:00 I might have to disagree with this one. there will always be red light runners. No traffic engineering approach will prevent red light runners.
I literally got into an argument about this during a road trip this week. I have always thought of the Cameras as revenue generators. The profit split with the manufacturers is extremely surprising to me and cements that thought in my head. Thanks for the video Rob. Great information as always!
Right? Talk about a conflict of interest. Makes you wonder if these laws were put in place out of incompetence or greed.
Still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be red light cameras if they really do reduce accident rates. They should have just fixed the perverse incentives with the whole money making aspect. They are throwing away the baby with the bathwater.
Even if you split the profit, it's still generating money for the city. If a private company pays to install the camera, even if the city only gets like 30% of the money after the company and state get their cut, the city is still making money they wouldn't have at no cost to them (assuming you don't have a minimum revenue clause built into the contract with the camera company).
Lucky you can stop that revenue generators, by just following the law.
Strange thing that manufacturers get a little of the money, but knowing that tax for road use is otherwise in the US I understand that some states do this.
In The Netherlands I pay to use the road, so I'm allowed do drive on it and with that money they can fix/upgrade the road.
Amount differs per car by weight, 2nd car I paid 204,- per quarter and now 82.-
@@TohaBgood2 The manufacturer poisoned the well with the public. There was active collusion taking place, where the goal was not to create a safer traffic outcome, but to generate money that would be used to pay for the aforementioned tech and pay the government. Any kind of benefit of the doubt afforded the use of the tech is likely irreparably damaged, and justifiably so. Even if that didnt persuade you, then ponder this: Why is the redlight cam tech after year 2000 still so expensive it needs to be effectively "leased"? Why wouldn'tve it become affordable in the last 20 years to have the city owning that tech still?
literally spit my water out at the west Hollywood joke. fantastic video as always
That was genius
That's the one joke I didn't get 😅
@@ScottWallace5 There are many gay people in West Hollywood (i.e. not straight).
@@MirzaAhmed89 Ohh okay haha 🤣 Thank you for explaining it, that was funny
Rob thank you for this follow up story to red light cameras. It was super informative and extremely timely given the number of red light runners there seem to be. I’m talking about the straight through type. I just wanted to let you know that the story of on ramp lights was never finished. The minis oat experiment to remove them was only hinted to in your video never fully explored.
I think the reason why I love your videos so much is that constant trollface you're giving us. 😁
Wild and crazy idea: make yellow lights count down like crosswalks so people know if they'll make it or not
This is actually a thing in China! The length of the green, yellow, and red are all displayed in a countdown next to the light. Not sure if it can be implemented in the US since a lot of intersections (especially in suburban areas) rely on loop detectors and other methods to change the length of a green or red depending on the traffic.
I'd love to see this. The closest so far is seeing the countdown of the pedastrian "don't walk" sign - that's assuming there even is a visible countdown.
But that won't generate revenue. Can't have that.
more cost
In Russia all new lights show duration of green and red remaining. There isn't usually a predatory behavior with camera placement (unless it's a private speedcam) because the fines aren't generating much revenue due to smaller fines. Camera placement is usually in places with high risk of major accidents. Local highway near my town has 3 speedcams on the way to the next city over, all 3 are at bus stop crosswalks.
Thank you for providing such high quality information to the people. You single-handedly improve public traffic policy just a little bit with every video you release.
I'm first! YAY
the uploader is first lol
I feel there may have been some foul play involved in your comment being first. 🤔
Haha very funny
Did you run a red light to get here first. :-)
Brilliant.
Revenue based policing doesn’t have anything to do with safety❗️
In the Phoenix area all the 'red light' cameras are also speed cameras. Go through the intersection at more than 10 HPH over the speed limit on a green light it is a ticket. Mesa and Scottsdale also do mid-block (not intersection) cameras. Scottsdale is in long straightaways. Mesa is common in the 35 MPH school zone (not sure what if any threshold there is on those). At one time we even had speed cameras on the freeways, that was outlawed fairly quickly. In the last week the AZ Legislator is trying to push through a bill which would ban the cameras all together.
6:27 I thought I was trippen thats gta5 lol 😂😂😂 I’m weak it looks so realistic at first
Traffic calming would also do a lot more to reduce red light running and speeding.
Excellent video as always.
traffic calming is still a very rare thing in the US but it'll become more populair in the coming decades.
We have automobiles the safest, fastest and most efficient as they’ve ever been. So we lower speed limits to walking pace because we can’t be bothered to make sure drivers are actually competent… 🤦♂️
@@troyjollimore4100 efficient? Bruh it’s bankrupting cities and states 😭😂
@@miles5600 What is bankrupting them? You’re saying that having a 300HP vehicle that can haul several in relative comfort with all of their stuff and still return 25+ MPG isn’t efficient?
@@troyjollimore4100 You're right about the automobiles. However the US doesn't have disciplined drivers. Traffic calming forces drivers to slow down and pay attention (hopefully).
I just drove through DT LA a couple days ago. There are so many intersections there where, during the middle of the day, especially left turns, it’s almost impossible to make it through the light without going during that gap between when your light changes and the cross traffic starts moving. Some of the red light running I saw was very excessive and inexcusable, but there were some instances where I had to run red lights because I had already been sitting at the light through several cycles. Very poor city planning in my opinion.
When you are the first car in line, you "take the intersection". This means you pull out into the intersection when you have the green light, but you don't begin your left turn yet. When the light turns red, you have already entered the intersection on green and you have the right to complete your left turn legally. Always take that intersection. This is taught to every commercial truck driver. Left turns in a tractor trailer would never happen without this technique.
@@the_mowron I always do this too!
@@the_mowron I grew up in OC with some well designed spacious cities. When I married and moved to Long Beach, my wife had to teach me how to take the intersection. It felt very weird at first but now that I’ve lived in LA county for 7 years I can’t imagine driving any other way.
As stated by the City of Los Angeles Council - July 31, 2011 @ 12:00 AM Red Light Camera plugs were pulled out ! It's been 10 plus years since that day. I noticed on 1st Street & Mission Road going East Bound towards Boyle Heights there are still signages & cameras still attached to poles. This is the place LA Metro Train goes through. Why is that ?
@@the_mowron Yup, was taught to drive like this since the CA suburb I grew up in had a lot of unprotected left turns. You enter the intersection when it's green so you aren't running a red, but sit there until it's yellow/ just turning red so you can make your turn without traffic interference.
This is really truly an amazing, informative and entertaining video. Great job Rob! Looking forward to seeing the next one!
What gets me is how many people don't know you are suppose to stop before making a turn. They think they just need to yield.
That's basically all of California even for stop signs.
I think this is a very important message that needs to spread. This needs to expand to speed cameras as well. New York City has implemented the most egregious camera program I have ever run across and I have fears this is going to spread across New York and the nation. The red light camera program on Long Island needs to come to an immediate end.
They have been ruled unconstitutional around the country. Who can you question in court? Who can prove that YOUR car and YOU were there? It's a violation of Due Process, a right we ALL to face and question our accuser
@@mrmotofy So, security camera footage can't be used then? I can rob a bank and if I get away I'm scot free because you can't use that camera's footage against me? Or does it just apply to drivers?
@@harshbarj Criminal law has a very different level of evidence than a traffic ticket. But there's similarities. If they don't have any other evidence other than a bank robber in a mask and say yes this the John Doe Bank Robber...very unlikely to get a conviction. They will work much harder to find evidence for a bank robbery especially since the Feds get involved. A red light ticket...they don't care so much for that $75 they might receive from it.
I never said video can't be used...but they have to prove WHO the driver is...not just oh it's John Doe's car must be him. Or beyond a reasonable doubt the individual was in the car. For a bank robbery they may get a plate from every vehicle seen leaving the area, then get cell phone records...now they have an identity, then they check bank records. A walmart worker making $500/wk suddenly deposits $30k in cash when they've never done that before. Now they have a real suspect...then you get hauled in and interrogated. Then you can't explain where you just got the lump of cash. As they compare your size/weight to the bank video evidence and it matches...then they take it to court and let a jury decide is this the guy or not. In a traffic case like a red light or illegal turn...they won't waste that much time.
@@harshbarj Security cameras don't file tickets - someone has to actually go and look at them to use them as evidence.
Oh my gosh what a great surprise! A Road Guy Rob video!
I’ve trained myself to focus on the red light or stop sign and obey them first feeling my car stop. THEN, I look at traffic and my opportunity to safely proceed.
congrats you've passed like step 3 of driver school keep at it and you can get a license.
I do the same, one task at a time is better for stops, preparing for what is immediately in front of you. So annoying seeing people slow enough to see you coming and think, "oh crap I got to get in front of that person," then pull in front of you and immediately stop in the middle of the highway! I don't think red light camera's are the way to go though. I end up floring it any time I'm in the in between spot. Only concern I have then is not to get a ticket.
@@joshuaerickson2458 Highway ramp reds I run 100% of the time if no cops are around.
@@Eric_Tennant I haven't seen a red light camera on a highway on ramp yet. I don't mind those too much as they should only come on when there is heavy traffic on the highway.
Oh, you mean you actually learned how to drive, the alternative of now, when they just teach how to aim?
Your videos are so good, and extremely insightful. Thank you!
This video is awesome, and that West Hollywood joke was spot on
You've found a new fan. Love seeing my backyard online, and this was a great, highly informative upload!
When I moved a few years ago, I was surprised to find a stack of almost a dozen red light tickets in my mail, all arrived at once for turning right on red at the same intersection. Ended up having them all thrown out because the intersection was not properly signed to indicate it was photo enforced.
Ontario introduced red light cameras some time ago. The difference here is that traffic tickets are a Provincial Offense, and ticket revenue goes to the general coffers of the province, not the municipality. That's why we don't have "speed trap towns". (although, that doesn't mean the O.P.P. doesn't set up where the speed limit changes coming into a town) Having revenue going to the camera company, and to the municipality is a systemic conflict of interest which any honest decision maker would have seen from the start and rejected out of hand.
Albany, NY set up 30 cameras. They expected 1mil/yr, but never saw a dime. The company takes their cut per camera and it never went above it. They also have to have a police officer sign off on it. If you get it a ticket, you really ran a light.
But we do have speed cameras as well as artificially low speed limits where 99.99% of all drivers, including police exceed. They are going to be much more common going forward as they are a much bigger scam/ revunue generator.
True, and don't get me started on speed limits here, I'm irked at the mere mention. I pity the odd American driving on the 401 at 100kph speed limit and wondering why they're getting all the unfriendly stink eye.
The USA doesn't have issues with conflict of interest. It's everyday business with them
@@timothylegg Well, I wouldn't say Canada is a bright light on that score, either, but I agree, it seems to be just the way business is done in the States.
Hey Rob....cool video. Texas banned red light cameras statewide back in 2019. Never bothered me much, but I'm glad they are all gone.
Texas and New Jersey don't agree on much, but they've both banned red light cameras. Good.
Red light cameras in Texas? Surprised they were built in the first place.
@@aygwm They probably figured they get enough revenue from having the most speed traps.
Just saw this video in my feed so I'm not familiar with this channel at all, but holy crap you're a good presenter. The editing of this video was amazing as well.
I live in South Carolina. Apparently we have a law that bans red light cameras! Who knew! A lot of cities/towns have cameras at intersections but I suppose it is only for accidents or traffic reports? I don't run red lights so have no did not realize the cameras were not for red light cameras. Sweet video! I subscribed.
People not stopping for right on red make biking on roadside multi-use trails with crossrides incredibly dangerous, that's why I've switched to riding on the street.
I have had a car turning right on red run over my bike as I crossed in a crosswalk on a clearly marked bicycle path/sidewalk. I managed to get off my bike as it was pushed under the car.
I agree with both sides here: failing to stop before a right on red is not a victimless crime, and needs widespread enforcement to stem the tide of people for whom it has become habitual. Same for stopping blocking the crosswalk, or really any stop that is not wholly behind the stop line as required by law. We have gotten to where many pedestrians cannot or will not cross if there are cars trying to turn right.
But it isn't nearly as big a crime as the people who blow straight through a red light at the speed limit, and the punishment should not be the same.
This video just shows how crazy car centric the US is. Fuck bikes, fuck pedestrians. They are not seen equal to car drivers. That sucks. All the arguments about "but there is nobody around, why should I be ticketed when doing a rolling right on red?" - yeah, why not continue right straight through the intersection, if there's a red light and there's nobody around? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to see and understand the whole situation within fractions of a second, especially without stopping! So stupid and dangerous.
(The funding going partly to a private company, though...)
@@spyone4828 Not just for pedestrians, but stopping behind the line is important in tight intersections for semis and busses to make left turns. Nobody seems to care that those lines are there for a reason. That's why whenever I pull up behind someone who's stopped over the crosswalk, I leave plenty of room between us, so that if the situation arises where they're forced to accept that they're an idiot and have to back up out of the way, they can do so without having to wait for a long line of cars behind them to back up in turn.
Right on red is legal in most states. Make sure you’re visible and bring a horn to make yourself know to cars with blind spots.
@@angelgjr1999 Right on red is legal, but at least here in Ontario you have to first come to a stop behind the stop line. Most people rocket into the pedestrian and bike crossing, only looking left for car traffic, intending not to stop at all if there's no cars in the way. Not a second of thought for pedestrians or cyclists.
What an interesting video. I had never even considered these cameras could be used for anything other than stopping red light running.
Also, I suddenly want to play GTA5.
Please more perspectives from people who walk or bike and how it interferes with them. I love that you included one in this video, but even more is better :)
I've almost been hit while walking by SO many people that roll through red lights on right hand turns. I'm personally all for traffic cameras enforcing the law.
people who use crosswalks at intersections deserve to learn the hard way.
@@wolu9456 ???
That online dating example is spot on... and exactly how modern dating apps like Tinder work.
The simple fact that cities using cameras shortened the yellow light interval is all you need to know about their stated "concern for safety". Governments/politicians/bureaucrats don't care about you.
Maybe if there was no profit incentive, they would actually time the yellows long enough for the red light cameras to not be a problem. The cameras are a good idea; Incentivizing manufacturers to create unsafe signalling is not
Yep! It looks to me like the red light cameras did work. But once you mix all the perverse incentives, the cities basically started misusing them to milk more money to pay for the camera contract. But that only happened because delinquency rates dropped to nothing. That's objectively a good thing!
They should have kept the cameras and fixed the perverse incentives instead. This was a dumb fix to a dumb problem that the cities created themselves.
@@TohaBgood2 Delinquency rates are not zero. The story though doesn't surprise me in the least. I know of at least one such intersection with such a stupid camera nearby .. catching rolling right turns where there is usually not much else going on.
Safety should win, not money-making.
For the dangerous right turns .. the best remedy seems to be to make the turn more sharp, eliminate the right-turn yield-bypass. Voila, and doesn't even need a camera.
Funny that you see yellow light runners as victims of a system instead of the problem that requires a resolution.
In fact, Chicago has a large red light camera (and speed camera) system, and almost every yellow light is timed to 3.0 seconds - the bare minimum recommended for a signed 30 mph road. With drivers often going 35 - 40 mph on the wider arterial roads, the short yellow lights create a larger dilemma zone, leading to more tickets (not to mention leaving less time for pedestrians and cyclists to make it across the street during a yellow light).
By contrast, the adjacent suburb of Oak Park has streets in a similar urban environment (25 - 30 mph), and their yellow lights are 4.0 - 4.5 seconds long, which gives more time for drivers to make a decision whether or not to stop at the yellow light.
@@SL420- If the yellow is 2 seconds, even you would run the red, or risk getting rear-ended
Rear-end collisions caused by drivers breaking too early when the light turned yellow in fear of getting a ticket was another BIG issue.
Those might increase but these cameras significantly reduce both T-bone and pedestrian fatalities. Over there is a significant safety benefit when applied to dangerous intersections.
@@logtron F*ck the nanny state.
So that’s somehow the red light cameras fault that’s just greed
@Phillip Banes exactly all these assholes be tailgating then complain when the person in front of them brakes
Americans really dont like it when people break or slow down as rear end collision is bad in america everywhere else people just stop or slow down as seen so many dash cam vids on youtube of americans just full speed rear end people as brake lights means nothing to them think the driving test for licence needs to change and teach more people about braking when car in front slows or stops that will solve that issue.
I don't know if the rule has changed, but when I was young, California allowed a right turn without stopping as long as it was safe to make the turn. hence the common term, "california stop" to refer to such a right turn.
I would think, red light would work as Stop sign. On a Stop sign, you must stop regardless, and so would be the ligic here, and actually even more so because traffic light means more traffic concerns than those at local Stop signs.
I never knew that's where california stop came from. I always assumed it meant drivers in california are known for just not stopping all the way 😆
Yes, this is a common fallacy. I’ve met driving INSTRUCTORS that believe something is Law, because they and most other drivers have always done it…
The rule hasn't changed, because it has never been allowed. What people do in practice is not the same as what the law states. CVC has never allowed for a "rolling" stop. Stop means stop. There's no such thing as a rolling stop.
@@bluered1322 you assumed correct
The biggest point of this story is how willfully ignorant those politicians were. To vote unanimously against traffic cameras after a civilian brought some data forward really shows how little they look into things they vote on without outside influence.
In my burg, the first two tickets issued got thrown out of court because a lawyer showed up to dispute the system. Later the city got caught shortening the length of the yellow lights to increase the probability of red-light runners. The first two locations were not the locations with the greatest amount of crashes. The two locations were the primary access points to our burg's version of the ghetto. The company which owned the system was headquartered in Europe and they got most of the revenue generated from the tickets. Columbia, MO no longer has any red-light runner cameras.
If there is red light camera, I just stop for green. There is no law that forces drivers to turn on red. Turning on red is entirely optional.
Same. I've heard far too many stories about red lights that were "accidentally" timed wrong, and will ticket on a yellow.
Actually, you probably could get pulled over for obstruction of traffic if you're causing traffic to back up.
The root problem is that governments like using money collected through fines, penalties and enforcement of the rules to fund government services because it allows them to have better services without having to raise taxes or cut finding elsewhere. And its a lot more politically acceptable to say that they are raising revenue from people who are breaking the law than that they are raising revenue through increased taxes.
This isn't limited to just money raised from traffic tickets and infringements but also enforcement of building codes and all kinds of other things.
In the UK we've been GATSO'd to fkk for years. If you get a ticket in the post, you have to state who was driving. Failure to do so will land you in court. But, despite hearing for years how they are 'Safety Cameras' and how it's all about 'Road Safety', everyone knows it's for Revenue. The Safety data just doesn't back up the claims. Some regional areas have vastly reduced the number of cameras, stating in many cases that they 'can't afford to process the tickets'. City centres however remain both a minefield, and a goldmine.
4) No revenue sharing agreements. They are a clear conflict of interest. Cities should buy the cameras outright. Sure, this is expensive, but I'd rather have a situation where the city knows they have the money to put in , say, 3 cameras and looks at where they will be most effective than peppering the city with dozens and dozens of "free" cameras tuned to generate maximum revenue.
It kinda has the same problem. Do you think the city is going to put those three cameras where they will prevent the most accidents, or where they will issue the most tickets?
Cities have come to view law enforcement, especially traffic laws, as a way to make money. And that needs to stop.
There is a town in Ohio that has no taxes at all, and generates its entire income by issuing traffic tickets on a couple of miles of Interstate highway that passes through town. It has been that way for decades.
@@spyone4828 Well, the first point in the video is that cities should not be allowed to touch the money.
But personally, I think letting the state government squander it or letting it collect dust forever isn't great. Rather, it should be paid out to the city's victims of red light runners. Basically, if you're injured by someone who ran a red light in that city, you get a cut of the fines collected. If that's not possible, maybe use it for a program to buy school supplies for children or something. But whatever is done with it, *not one cent* can go to the city police department budget.
Basically, traffic enforcement needs to be viewed as an expense designed to increase safety. Even trying to frame it as revenue-neutral is problematic.
Also, the pervasive "small town foists its public expenses onto unsuspecting motorists" problem has to stop. While I don't have a solution, I do know it is due in large part to decades of systematic industrial disinvestment in rural America. These towns are doing this not just out of greed, but because they and their residents have no money to pay for their public infrastructure needs, there are no tourists and no real industry, so traffic enforcement is their last available avenue to balance the budget.
"I just don't think we can give a green light to this red-light report."
Hahaha, well-played!
A city near me installed red light cameras and got public approval by saying that they were only a $40 fine with 0 points... Then 2 years later raised the fine to a standard red light infraction ($200+). Then they shortened the yellow light time to 3s on all of the lights to catch more that weren't quite making it through in time.
Thus proving it had nothing to do with safety and was all about revenue.
This has got me thinking, is there a real safety benefit to instructing a complete stop at intersections with good visibility? When I'm from (the UK) the philosophy is stop signs should only be put in when the junction is exceptionally dangerous, usually because the view of the main road is restricted. I can only think of one junction in my local areas that has one, all the rest are yield (or "give way" as we call it). Drivers are expected to slow down usually to speeds below 15 mph, and learners are instructed to do so. Effectively we make "rolling stops" legal on 99% of junctions and rely on drivers good judgment. Then again, we don't allow left on red so we're not necessarily more lenient.
There is a town in Texas where EVERY intersection is an all way stop. Not only annoying, but hard on your car as well.
Every municipality should need to pay $10K per year per stop sign. 90% of stop signs are a indication of a road design failure, so the money should go into a fund to mitigate those failures.
American drivers don't know what yield/"give way" means. If they actually yielded to pedestrians and cyclists, then fine, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, many intersections in my area actually do have yield signs for the slip lanes for right turns, which overrides the stop requirement. But drivers don't actually yield at them, except to other drivers (because that might hurt their precious car).
@@blakeh95 I wish I could upvote this more. As a pedestrian I've been hit on the sidewalk by cars coming out of driveways that were only looking for other cars.
@@HweolRidda I wish they'd at least put in stop bars across the road. I've been caught out in the US before not seeing the STOP sign because I'm so used to seeing markings in the road (luckily my passenger pointed it out!).
I've been driving in LA for 23 years and let me tell you the vast majority motorist are pretty good drivers. Sure, there are a percentage who are oblivious to their surrounds, but most are pretty "spot on" and act accordingly or everyone's commute will be a nightmare. I see thousands of cars every day and commute many miles, but accidents are actually rare which is amazing considering the environment and the potential for hazards. Red light cameras were nothing more than government fleecing its citizens for money everyone knows that.
Things must have changed a LOT since the last time I drove in LA.
The traffic, and the kamikaze drivers, was more than enough to convince me to never go back.
Of course, I wouldn't go ANYWHERE in the People's Democratic Republic of Mexifornia anymore, so I guess it's a moot point.
@@marktwain2053 Some people perception is different from others with regard to LA drivers. From a political perspective we are on the exact same page!
Hahaha I see that GTA 5 footage. Perfect place to simulate traffic incidents and dangerous driving.
Thank you for adding captions.
For many places, it was not even the complaints of civilians ticketed that shut down the red-light camera program. It was maintaining and renewing the contract with Redflex, ATS, etc., that was a pain. To tje point where the engineer's primary duty was to maintain the program.
Seems like a lot of the problems with red light cameras being revenue magnets and the safety of cyclists and pedestrians is two fold on this one:
Make revenue sharing agreements for law enforcement illegal.
End turns on red and yield on green, make all turns require a green arrow; don't allow green lights on conflicting pedestrian or bicycle movements. Program signal controllers to give greens/walks to the most people (not vehicles, people) waiting. Yeah, this means the direction with a bus coming is going to get a green longer than anything except a train or emergency vehicle. Yes, this means turning the light yellow the moment the last vehicle crosses the line. Yes, this means starting to flash the signal don't-walk when the last person leaves the curb and keep it flashing until the last person reaches the other side. The technology exists and is already widely deployed in parts of the world. If this is too much work, then your intersection's too large or you really should be using a roundabout instead.
Make vehicle owners legally liable for actions taken by people they let drive their vehicle.
The Dutch figured this one out decades ago.
These cameras are everywhere in Germany. Most cities virtually shut down at night. I got a ticket at 2am for speeding 8mph over the limit on a completely deserted city street (38mph in an 30mph zone). My wife got a ticket for not wearing her seatbelt while moving her car from one parking space to another (50ft). Those tickets weren't cheap. Was so glad to get back to the states where laws and law enforcement were a little more tolerant. Sadly, America has changed.
As someone who enjoys walking around cities, the rolling right turn on red is super dangerous and needs to stop. It's super common so I don't know the best way to enforce it.
When I lived in Texas there was an intersection that had a camera which was removed after the state prohibited enforcement of such tickets but the bizarre light timing remained. It was a T intersection with not even a private driveway across the top of the T but that direction got a short green then red when the opposing direction got a green.
Fife, WA realized how much they were making off their first camera, they installed a handful more, focusing on dinging right turn on red violators. They also installed a speed camera on a road that has no posted speed limit.
I wish if there is more enphasis on public transit as well in this channel.
the other change I would make with photo enforcement would be that the citation is issued against the vehicle, not the driver. the vehicle gets the fine, the vehicle gets points against its license, and if the vehicle doesn't pay the citation, the vehicle goes to jail. I was told about this detail by a person from a scandanavian country, and he said it works well to reduce the misbehavior.
Only works with vehicles that are actually _worth_ any money. In that program, beaters will get impounded, their "owners" wouldn't do anything to get them back (just buy another cheap beater that costs far less than releasing the last one), and since their only real value at that point is scrap, so the municipality is out quite a bit of money that will likely never be recovered from the offender (that unfortunately would never get recovered short of forced servitude for failure to pay the fine in any other circumstance).
@@notmuch_23 so you are saying that this proposal has the unexpected benefit of taking unsafe vehicles off the road? Clever
I do agree that getting a $500 ticket for rolling a right-on-red at 2 a.m is very frustrating, but I think that getting into the mentality of "its no big deal if no one is there" can be pretty dangerous too. Most people don't run over pedestrians and cyclists on purpose (I hope), they run them over because they likely didn't see them, because they are easy to miss. So when people get into the idea of "oh there's no one around, I can be a bit careless", well it can lead to bad habits. just because you didn't see someone, it doesn't mean they're not there.
And you'd be surprised how often this happens. I ride an e-scooter and pretty much every other day I come close to being hit by someone turning right. It happened so often that I had to fit literal car horns on my scooter. I always ride facing opposite to traffic so I'm never behind drivers, and I have an extremely bright light on my scooter which is brighter than the average halogen light on a car, yet people still don't see me.
Yeah, l noticed it a couple of times that the driver wasn't even looking at me at the crossing when I was right in front of him, but rather looking to the left when turning right. Surprised no one is talking about forbidding right turns on red altogether
I believe there is a general problem with American drivers not thinking that its their responsibility to avoid running over pedestrians. that said if drivers already are not looking for you then "its no big deal if no one is there" is less dangerous because it implies that they looked to see if anyone was there
People who are against red light cameras are drivers who want to run red light cameras. If you walk, bicycle, or ride a motorcycle (or an electric scooter in your case), then you're completely for red light cameras because a 3000 to 6000 pound car hurts a lot. Basically, it's drivers who want to drive through red lights.
I agree that in *some* cases the city was simply using this as a money grab, but I disagree with the part about right on red. The law says you must come to a complete stop, and it's very dangerous for drivers to be cutting corners on that rule. By doing rolling stops, drivers risk hitting people in crosswalks because they aren't stopping to check for blindspots. Overall, red light cameras are DEFINITELY good for cities, as long as the intersection has been designed properly.
I can't believe how gullible some people are. This was never about safety. If it was, other less costly methods would have been used. This was about raising money from fines.
the sneakiness of this corruption is out of hand. everything is owned by corporations to generate money. even the very cameras that fine us.
I love to watch Road Guy Rob’s videos. Just so I can stand back in awe about how absolutely everything is just so wrong about the US road system. The UK system isn’t perfect but my god, it’s 100 times safer than what you guys over there have to put up with.
So he supports fining rolling right turns when they almost hit him, but not when "no one is around"?
How does one determine that?
Common sense.
No one there, no need to fine someone for not putting anyone in danger.
@@Fools_Requiem Honestly, that would likely make the whole system more bloated and confusing, especially in America. What exactly does it mean for someone to be there? Everyone has their own interpretation. Then we'll have 50 pages of descriptions of what it means for someone to be there, each with varying fine amounts. Every time someone gets a ticket they will try to argue their fine should be from section 3c rather than 1a etc.
Similar to that are speed limit signs near schools that say "School zone - 25 mph limit when children are present." I never know what "are present" actually means in that case. (What if a kid is 100/200/300 yards away, or down a side street? Or if a lone kid is sitting down on the grass nearby when school is not in session? ) But they have that very arbitrary and ill-defined law in almost every town in the country.
@@Everspy Use your head...
@@Fools_Requiem Thanks for the input.
As an LA driver you best believe the cameras caused more issues than they solved. 1 we all sped through like maniacs trying to avoid the camera 2 because of this accidents and near misses became a thing 3 lots of road rage against other drivers and pedestrians who “blocked”traffic in the middle of the intersection 4 everyone would break in yellow 5 it caused severe distractions when a flash went off in a busy intersection and all traffic would flinch at the possibility of getting dinged. 6 after the removal the dead cameras kept up 1-5 going on for years, besides being an eyesore
What we need are Yield light cameras because I've hardly ever seen anyone stop at a Yield sign. And talking to some people about this, people think yield means to merge.
I never thought fines were a good way of handling traffic violations. Fines are by their very nature too punishing to low income people, and not punishing enough for high income people. I don't like living in a society where a rich person can act however they like because they can afford to do it.
There are places (like the Scandinavian countries) that scale fines to wealth and income, based on tax records and such.
Especially considering that the people who set the fines are usually the same people who receive the payments...
'Punishable by fine' just means 'legal for a price'
The cost is incredibly inconvenient, but the benefit is negligible. Usually it's just another stream of revenue for the government. I think the Freakanomics book touched on the phenomenon of monetary punishment, where they found that people who had to pay off a punishment treated it like a standard transaction. If it's too expensive, you avoid the activity or do a better job at not getting caught, while if it's relatively affordable to you, you would just be more reckless when you know you can pay it off.
IMO traffic violations in general should be reevaluated to see what actually causes accidents (usually, some kind of loss of control) and how better to prevent them. The current solution is incredibly flawed, where you have to try not to be the last in a line of cars on the freeway because traffic is moving above the speed limit and a cop could randomly stop the last car he can catch.
The great thing about community service/jail time is that time is equally limited to the poor and rich alike
Hi Rob
Hi, KD!
I once got a speeding ticket from a red light camera (in my city red light cameras give tickets for both red light violations and speeding on green). At the intersection before the camera, the road drops from 80km/hr to 60km/hr. There is no change in road design to encourage you to lower your speed, just a simple sign that I hadn't seen (and after looking at historic images on Google Streetview, I found that this intersection used to be 80km/hr as well until relatively recently). To make it worse, immediately after this intersection, this road merges onto a major highway, meaning drivers are preparing to match the speed of the 100km/hr highway.
So a road drops from 80km/hr to 60km/hr only to jump up to 100km/hr, for no apparent reason, and the only enforcement of this speed reduction is a simple sign and a red light camera? And to make it worse still, I was driving home from work, and my tickets was larger than my paycheque for the day. This was just preying on poor people with no other option then to drive to work on roads designed for speeds in great excess to what is posted.
I remember while ago was a story of one of the first cameras were installed in Washington DC, if I am not mistaken, that was keep on writing citations wrong. They took down the camera, but people never got their money back. So I would like to know more about who was responsible for that and how they solved that issue.
Thank you for your unbiased opinion.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
Just end right turns on red.
Nobody is doing it properly and safely.
Bad habits of rolling through red lights at 2am is what creates accidents with pedestrians and cyclists at 2pm.
Rolling on red to turn right should be strictly prohibited and enforced if red turns on red is allowed to continue.
Also allow right turns on red creates dangerous situations for pedestrians and cyclists as vehicles unnecessarily roll out (and many times without proper looking) and occupying the safe crossing areas.
yes, and the blinking yellow signal.
This was a pretty milquetoast report for RUclips. I found it both frustrating because I know a lot of the unadulterated evil involved behind the cameras, and refreshing because the truth is seriously click baitey.
I’m familiar with one of the companies, ATS, because I worked with and observed the company that created it. Those people had serious ethical challenges. Their reputation was that they “bought” the business with their entertainment budgets which were quite lavish. Like private jets to golf tournaments lavish. So then ATS is created to sell products to public officials. Hmm, what could go wrong?
Well, re engineering of intersections to increase violations is what eventually went wrong. It starts with using a camera at a problem intersection which needs a timing or physical change to reduce the likelihood of violations (dangerous accidents), and eventually it evolves to changing the timing or infrastructure at an intersection to actually increase violations. Yep, let’s induce accidents to make a buck! Yay!
The topper came in Houston, TX where the worst mayor in its history, Mayor White, ended up bribing a Rice University professor (I should look him up, but he gets a pass today) to redo a study into the camera effectiveness after it showed problems.
Who could foresee that a politician would end up bribing a professor? I didn’t see that coming, but if you’ve ever been videotaped, you know it doesn’t usually make you your best self. Hey, I have an idea, let’s start an internet company to make money off embarrassing videos! 🤣😂🤣😂
The red light camera contract was upheld in the courts over the will of the people.
Too many people roll through red lights while staring to their left and give no thought to bikes or pedestrians. Just come to a complete stop please.
That part. And think that attempted manslaughter behavior is completely acceptable.
Increasing yellow light time reduces collisions whereas installing red light cameras doesn't.
Some states like Tennessee have deemed traffic camera tickets as unconstitutional. When you receive a violation caught from a camera in the mail, it says you don’t have to pay it.
Really love that the guy from "Safer Streets" is advocating that it's fine to run right on red "as long as no one is around" gtfoh
Yeah, not what's being advocated for, but thanks for the straw man argument.
@@jaybeeber4691 Really? Because at 10:05 he says, verbatim, "It's that person getting that ticket at $500 at 2 o'clock in the morning when no one's around, or even the middle of the day when no one's around."
@@hippynothipster "...That shouldn't be getting a $500 ticket". Not advocating that "it's fine to run right on red". That was never said and claiming it was, and then arguing against it is a classic straw man argument.
This is nearly purely a California thing in the first place, which is hilarious. I live next door in AZ and it's very rare to roll a right turn. Idk if it's more blind corners, less traffic, or what, but it just feels incredibly unsafe to not stop and check your left before turning on a red.
Well in many states have different laws, so in CA it’s legal to turn right on a red light, unless there is a sign that says “do not turn on red”
I love red light cameras. Im a pretty tame and safe driver, but if I see one of these lights I either slam on the brakes and put the cars behind me in danger, or floor it in my fast car and go through the intersection going 55 so im 100% sure I dont get a ticket.
Totally makes the roads safer.
In Canada it's called a p3 (public private program) and it's limited to the cost, time or ownership of the project.
As stated by the City of Los Angeles Council - July 31, 2011 @ 12:00 AM Red Light Camera plugs were pulled out ! It's been 10 plus years since that day. I noticed on 1st Street & Mission Road going East Bound towards Boyle Heights there are still signages & cameras still attached to poles. This is the place LA Metro Train goes through. Why is that ?
Love your channel thanks
Here in Tennessee we have red light cameras (and speed cameras). We also have a state law that says if you get a red-light ticket you do not have to pay and the city that put it up cannot come after you to collect. Basically if you pay the ticket it is a donation. The reason being is the evidence is sent to a third party to generate the ticket and the ticket is issued against the owner of the car whether they were driving or not. So basically a driver has to prove his innocence rather than the government having to prove guilt. So screw your red light cameras.
If there's a YIELD sign , it means Slow down and prepare to stop if necessary, otherwise keep moving. No stop on Red involved.
The signs/ lights are contrary to traffic flow and impede vehicular movement. We are currently experiencing this scenario in our town .
The problem is not all programs take into consideration holidays, summer school, weekends, or weather related absences.
This causes traffic jams in many cases and seems unproductive unless you're the companies involved in installing or removing said devices
I am noticing a lot of after effects of up-scaling using AI. 1:04 is very blurry and disoriented.
In other countries they use a double flashing yellow light before the red comes on. I find that a countdown just like your countdown for walking will be helpful