Safe Speed Forums

What does everyone think of red light cameras? Personally I have far less sympathy with those caught jumping a red than those straying a few mph above the speed limit. However, again I do not like relying on technological enforcement rather than proper police patrols. Which leads me onto asking at what point are these red light cameras set to trigger...

I drove through one today just as the lights went from green to amber, (front wheels hit the stop line just about on the change). Obviously in such a situation you go through, but say if it had been from amber to red would the camera have triggered? Even though trying to stop would be far more dangerous than going through the junction. Basically, does the camera activate the instant the red light comes on or do they have a delay of a second or two?

Also what happens if, for example you are turning right but there are a few cars in front of you halfway across the junction waiting to turn? You could get halfway over the line on green, then have to wait behind the queue until the lights change back to red before you're able to turn. This could mean you do not come into view of the camera until the lights have been on red for a while even though you crossed the line on green.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

I have FAR less of a problem with red light cameras than speed cameras.

The only problem with their use stems from over-zealous prosecution of those caught.

Example: the guy who moved over the line to let the ambulance through. That takes the combination of a camera and a little Hitler in an office somewhere.

Well, in the last instance , if there are a few cars waiting to turn right and you're behind them, you shouldn't cross the line until they've turned and you can put yourself in a position in the middle of the junction which allows you to go without potentially jumping a red light. I made this mistake in an artic - once - and boy did I get some stick from crossing traffic! I agree with you about technological enforcement vs proper policing.
I've been meaning to post for a while about what people think of red light jumpers. I ride a bike over 100 miles a week to and from work and, while I will stop at red lights if there's other traffic about, I frequently go through (carefully!) if it's 3am and there's nothing to be seen. The reason is that many lights will not register the presence of a bike, so I can either sit like a spare part getting steadily later for work until a car turns up and changes the lights for me, or I can roll through the red.
The main point is, the official attitude of this site - that road safety is about more than slavish adherence to an arbitrary set of numbers on a sign (and hear, hear) - could also apply to traffic lights. I don't jump lights when there's traffic around because I know it annoys people and it can be dangerous, but at some sets of lights, especially those on roundabouts, a cyclist can hear and see that it would be entirely safe to go through a red light. Possibly safer than waiting for a whole load of traffic to catch up and go through the lights with him or her. Is this another instance of overuse of a once - useful safety feature? Or am I a scruffy lentil - eating, sandal - wearing greenie who doesn't deserve to use the roads ? I may add that I obey traffic laws in every other respect, whatever time of day it is - I have lights, I am considerate and have good road sense. I love to break speed limits on the bike if I can but no one is perfect! Thoughts on this too please...
Apologies if I've gone a little off topic here - I got a bit carried away. Feel free to move, edit or moderate in any way you see fit.

I have no problem with red light cameras per se; however, I do have a problem with unnecessary traffic lights.

An increasing number of roundabouts and junctions are now controlled by traffic lights or are being converted to traffic light controlled junctions. All are a serious source of traffic conjestion (Sunbury Cross on the M3 is a class example) - these could also be dangerous.

So many roundabouts and junctions are now traffic light controlled that I wonder if drivers no longer feel the need to look right/left when joining - that scares me. Use of automated enforcement could exasperate the situation as it adds an extra level of complacency. This important driver skill is gruadually being eroded, could this be the reason why so many accidents occur at junctions? ('disobeying junction control')

This is another example of dumbing down of the driver; we're now being told to drive by colours as well as numbers.

Yes, absolutely. The main problem with traffic lights on roundabouts is that they can mix traffic in the middle lane turning right (legitimately) with traffic in the inside lane going straight on (also legitimately). That's quite tricky to illustrate, but the J1 M5 island (with the A41) is a classic example. Or the J10 M6 island. Or any island with lights on it

It was a red light camera which finally convinced me that all such cameras are simply cash machines and have little or nothing to do with safety. My wife was caught by one last year when she was driving and I was passenger. She was approaching a major crossroads with traffic lights, with a car close behind her - not quite tailgating, but just a bit too close for comfort. As she came up to the junction the light was green; it turned amber just as she was approaching the stop line and she, quite rightly in my opinion, decided to carry on rather than risk ending up with the following car in the boot. The light turned red after a suspiciously short time on amber, and she was caught by the camera. She now has a criminal record and 3 points - not to mention the fine, which I reckon was the whole point of the exercise. Her speed across the junction (according to the camera) was 34 mph (in a 50 zone) - hardy blasting through a red, was it? As a direct result of this unpleasant incident , for a couple of months afterwards both my wife and I automatically slammed on the brakes at the first hint of an amber light - pretty daft thing to do in the cold light of day, but when you’ve just been robbed and you don’t want any more points on your licence…
“Safety” cameras? I think not.

Evrything I have heard suggests that they have at least a 1 second delay. Most suggest 2 seconds.
If there are multiple lanes, especially if left, straight on, right then the cameras mignt not monitor all lanes. (check for lines very close to the stop line, the same distance before and after it.)
It's a bright white flash. Well 2 flashes.
My main problem with red light cameras is as pointed out earlier on here, you're sitting at a red light, there is a camera, an ambulance comes up behind you wanting to get past. What do you do?

As for the turning right question, is it illegal to cross the stop line when the red or amber light is showing. (unless it is amber and to 'pull up would be unsafe') That's it. Cross the line on green and you're ok. Once your entire vehicle is past the stop line you can 'safely' ignore the lights.

_________________
Andrew.

The only way the cameras can improve safety is by preventing people running red lights. Therefore you have to ask why someone would go through a red light and would a camera stop them.

If someone goes through because they just don't see the ligh then they won't see the camera, the camera fails (but does generate cash).

If someone goes through on purpose, the likelyhood is that they will have seen the camera and will stop. They will continue to run red lights where there is no camera.

Also, if the threat of being involved in a serious collision is not enough to stop someone deliberately running a red light will they be all that bothered about a £60 fine and 3 points?

I'm sure there's some American research which shows that red light cameras increase accidents.

I think what worries me is that if you get caught on an "either-way" amber, if you try and stop but end up a little bit over the line you're going to get the same fine and 3 points as if you just ran a "hard" red.

Therefore, the best options to avoid this are either to use extreme braking force, or to plant the accelerator and try and race the light while it's still amber. Neither of these things can possibly be good for safety. In the split second thinking time, the worry of prosecution could induce a bad decision.

(Another thing that worries me is those advanced stop lines for cyclists. The highway code suggsts you can be prosecuted for violating either of the two stop lines. If you are two seconds from the first line when the light goes amber, it's going to be a very close call to avoid being flashed for moving across one of the two lines, because if you aim to stop for the second line you may end up with the rear of the moving car still straddling the first line when the light goes red.)

This raises a question in my mind about the cycle areas at the front at traffic lights. Are these "advance lines" beyond the proper stop line for other vehicles or are they just a coloured bit of tarmac at the front of the queue for cyclists to use?

Where I recall them being put in, they appear to be just where the nomal stop line for cars was before. I assume that in a car you can just stop on the red tarmac as usual. Do these count as "cycle paths"?

Edit: I just looked at Section 154 in the Highway Code. This says you MUST stop at the first line if you are in a motorised vehicle. If you have crossed this first line and the lights go red then you MUST stop before the cyclists stop line. I am still not entirely clear as to when an offence has happened.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

These cams have there good and bad points as this link shows.
http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Ph ... edlt3.html

but the middalnds police use the words mistake, how can you fine people for a mistake.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

This is the highway code description:

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/16.htm#154

A very unsatisfactory situation, IMO. I can't think of an acceptable go/stop strategy that guarantess avoiding breaking one of those rules. It seems to me there's a "dead-zone" where if the lights change, you're going to break the law no matter what you do. You face a situation where to be 100% legal, you MUST completely clear the first line AND stop before reaching the sceond line, before the lights go red.

would you be asking the same question if his 'mistake' had killed someone?

As for everyone saying red light cameras are terrible, how often are you all running red lights? No doubt you're all happy to bitch and moan about all those evil cyclists running red lights. Admittedly I've only been driving for 20 years or so but I can't say that I've ever had a problem deciding whether to stop or go either in the car or on the bike.

Just to be clear, I definitely support intelligent red light enforcement, and I think a large majority of red light offences should be prosecuted. It's just the Robocop-style camera enforcement that needs to be looked at.

Already had to do it once this year to let a fire engine get by - fortunately at a set of lights not overlooked by a camera. Also had to do it once this year and a couple of times last year at lights which had clearly been stuck on red for significantly longer than their normal cycle length. Again, fortunately none of these happened at RLC-equipped lights.


Now, what would/should I have done if cameras HAD been at those sets of lights...

For the fire engine scenario it would have been a no brainer, sit tight and wait another 10-15 seconds for the lights to turn green and get out the way without tripping the camera. Sorry, but I'm not picking up points/fine just to save an emergency services vehicle a few seconds, not when a precedent has already been set which clearly shows the SCPs and legal system don't consider making way for an ESV to be a mitigating circumstance for quashing a RLC penalty.

But what about when lights are stuck on red? Do a u-turn and try to find an alternative route which avoids those lights, just because the mindless robocam can't tell the difference between someone running the red when it's genuinely wrong to do so and someone running the red because it's entirely the right thing to do? What about if, as was the case in one of the times last year, you're on a one-way street or dual carriageway and can't legally turn back?

_________________
Chris

Doesn't the amber phase bridge that gap?

Isn't it roughly equivalent to saying if you're too close to the lights when they go red you can't stop?

Or have I misunderstood?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Not really at a dual stop line. If you are too close to the first line to stop, you have to either try and race across both lines on amber, or stop at the second. Trying to race both lines is risky both from a safety and legal point of view. But if you try and stop at the second line, part of your vehicle might still be moving across the first line when the light goes red, which is a technical violation of the law.

I'm sorry if I'm being thick, but I still don't get it. I can stop at the first stop line with exactly the same degree of predictability that I can stop at any other stop line. This is enabled by the amber 'three second warning'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Well never. Until recently. There's a set of lights in Poole which stop you turning left (left only) and you have perfect visibility of the traffic coming the other way (only coming from the right). It used to be a give way. I have a choice of sitting there pointessly and getting frustrated or ignoring them and not being so frustrated. I'll be complaining about them when I get home. (still in Florida! Hey I drove through a red light today when turning right, but that doesn't count )


If the lights are broken they are no longer traffic lights (legally) so you can drive through.

Proving they are broken is another story. I remember a discussion about this somewhere and nobody could work out a logical way to tell if a set of lights was broken.

_________________
Andrew.

I don't have a problem stopping for traffic lights, although I have had the occasional problem deciding which set of lights apply to me.

But I do question the effectiveness of red light cameras and their ability to actually prevent accidents.