Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red-Light Camera Ticket Revenue and Short Yellows

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the show-your-yellow-teeth-for-the-camera dept.

Privacy 976

NicknamesAreStupid writes "A Fort Meyers news station reports a nerdy husband getting his wife out of a red-light camera ticket by proving the light was set with too short of a yellow. Then he goes out and proves that nearly 90% of the lights are set an average of about 20% too short. Is this a local incident, or have local governments nationwide found a new revenue source? What puzzles me is how a single picture can tell if you ran a light. If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle). Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing you are not in the intersection, and another after the light went red showing you in the intersection?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hay kdawson (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824214)

what the fuck is "online" about it?

-1 False Assumption (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824222)

If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!

Re:-1 False Assumption (5, Informative)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824320)

No, it's not that simple. Florida law [state.fl.us] says you may not *enter* the intersection when the light is red. It's perfectly legal to enter on a yellow, and to be in the intersection on the following red.

//not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.

Re:-1 False Assumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824360)

That's Florida though, it has its own Fark tag for a reason. In every state that I've lived in you have to be clear of the intersection when the red light comes on or God help you if a cop is there cuz you're about to get butthurt.

Re:-1 False Assumption (4, Informative)

theGloper (1788572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824414)

In Michigan straight from the what every driver must know handbook "A yellow light means the green signal has ended and the signal is about to turn red. You are required to stop on a yellow light. If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection."

Re:-1 False Assumption (3, Interesting)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824558)

In Maryland, where I live, the law is the same as Florida's. I've seen the light turn red on me just as I pass under and the red light camera never took a picture. I think there's a law requiring some sort of review before they send you a ticket, so if there was a good reason, you don't get ticketed.

Re:-1 False Assumption (1)

L3370 (1421413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824564)

Similar in Arizona. Red light camera's will trigger once you enter the intersection AFTER the light is red. If you are in the middle waiting to take a left hand turn there is no issue.

In arizona, most red light camera intersections have a painted red line several yards ahead of the crosswalk lines. It's a visual indicator for drivers. Your back wheel better be ahead of this line or you are gonna see a bright white flash ahead of you.

Re:-1 False Assumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824588)

In Hawaii you can't have any part of your car still in the intersection when the light turns red, so you better start slowing down if you see a yellow instead of speeding up (thus potentially increasing the accident hazard).

Re:-1 False Assumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824622)

Two reasons for this: 1) If someone runs the red light going the opposite direction and cuts you off on your left hand turn, they'll have forced you to run a red light. 2) Motorcycles are too small to set off magnetic sensors where lights are not timed, so motorcyclists must pull into the intersection and then clear as the light shifts to red.

Re:-1 False Assumption (4, Informative)

gmb61 (815164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824674)

In California, if any part of your car enters the intersection while the light is still yellow, then it's "your intersection" for as long as it takes you to get clear of it. The traffic camera must show that the car was behind the limit line at the moment the light turned red.

Re:-1 False Assumption (1, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824380)

If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!

Came here to say that.

FTS:

If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it (say to yield to an unexpected obstacle).

In my state (NJ), you have committed a moving violation if you are in the intersection when the light is red (unless you are turning right). I think it's a matter of selective enforcement that most officers won't ticket someone if the light was yellow when they entered it.

I think this is a good law. Assholes who speed up through yellow lights should get punished if the light turns red while they are in it. Anyone paying attention and driving an appropriate speed for traffic conditions will be able to stop before the intersection for a red light -- assuming, of course, that the yellow light is of proper duration. Which is why the guy from TFA's wife got off -- the yellow was short.

I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light, except when I wasn't paying attention and I didn't see the light turn yellow right away. I'm glad I didn't get tickets the times I've done that, but I would have deserved them.

Re:-1 False Assumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824494)

Ever been pulling a trailer during some rain and had the light turn yellow when you're 50' from the crosswalk? Good luck stopping in time. At 30 mph you're covering ~45 feet per second.

Re:-1 False Assumption (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824556)

Anyone paying attention and driving an appropriate speed for traffic conditions will be able to stop before the intersection for a red light -- assuming, of course, that the yellow light is of proper duration

Back in the real world, various cities have been shown to have reduced yellow light duration in order to increase fine revenues. It's hardly rocket science for a city that's low on cash. There were several newspaper articles about this in one city (DC, I think) a few years back.

And, back in the real world, the only method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce collision at stop lights is to increase the duration of the yellow; red light cameras merely result in more rear-end collisions as people slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket. While you can argue that's better than being hit from the side as someone runs the light, if you actually want to reduce accidents rather than rake in the fines, it would be much better if cities just increased the duration of the yellow.

Re:-1 False Assumption (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824568)

I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light

I have been in that situation many times. Specifically, I'm turning left, and there's no left-turn arrow, so when green comes up, I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into.

Now, normally, in such a situation, if the oncoming traffic is heavy enough that there is no chance to turn on green, you end up turning on yellow. The problem is that all too often, people driving straight just blast through on yellow, one by one, not giving you a chance to turn - and so you end up still being stuck on the middle of the road when red comes up.

Then again, my city (Richmond, BC) has some really long yellow traffic light times - at least in comparison to many other places I've seen - for which I am really glad. It might make traffic move a little bit slower, but it also makes things safer somewhat, since people don't rush as much.

Re:-1 False Assumption (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824590)

I have never in my life been in a situation where I've needed to run a red light

I take it that every left turn you make is a protected turn?

Making a left onto my street doesn't have a protected arrow, and the oncoming traffic is often busy enough that the only way you'll get through the intersection during much of the day is if you pull into the intersection and sit there until the oncoming traffic stops when their light is turning red.

Re:-1 False Assumption (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824714)

You must have not driven in any city or metropolitan area then. There are a lot of times where there is just no way to get past an unprotected left turn unless you get in the intersection, sit until the light turns red (and I mean red... people will continue to keep charging through on yellows), then get through.

Re:-1 False Assumption (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824508)

If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!

Not if the light turns red before it's supposed to, which is what the whole story is about. If you won't RTFA, at least RTFS.

Re:-1 False Assumption (1)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824692)

It is this way in California due to a recent change in traffic law. It didn't used to be. Until recently you could enter the intersection if it was still yellow and you were good.

Now if you don't exit before it turns red, you technically ran the light.

The assumption is if you were paying attention you either should have been able to stop, or clear the intersection, one of the two. Pretty good assumption if you ask me.

The idiots who try and plow through at the last second and end up still in the intersection when my light turns green SHOULD get a ticket.

Re:-1 False Assumption (1)

Methlin (604355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824706)

If you are in the intersection when the light is red the you have run the light. It's really very simple!

There's two rules [dot.gov] , and they vary depending on where you live. There's Permissive Yellow, where you're legal if you entered the intersection before the light changed to red, and then there's Restrictive Yellow where you're considered to have run the red light if it changes to red while you're still in the intersection. In the US most, but not all, states are Permissive Yellow.

if you're in the intersection and it's red (2, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824228)

you're doing it wrong.

Around here you aren't supposed to enter the intersection unless you will be able to make it through before it turns red.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824260)

So, you enter the intersection, then someone turns ahead of you unexpectedly.
They broke the law, you're stuck in the intersection.

It is impossible to ensure 100% of the time that you can pass through safely.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824276)

if you're in the intersection and it's red you're doing it wrong.

Unless the light turns red before it's supposed to, which is the basis of the story.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824298)

Correct. I got a ticket for this very reason. I was not completely through the intersection before it turned red. Turns out, you're expected to stop on yellow unless it's unsafe to do so.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824312)

In some busy cities it would be impossible to get anywhere if you couldn't be in an intersection when the light turns red, especially for left turns. I typically adjust my driving habits based on where I am driving. I don't know where you live, but around here it is legal to be in an intersection when the light turns red.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824412)

This is true. The general rule for turning left around here is just yield on solid green. You will get 1 car enter the intersection turning left but waiting for traffic to finish up.

Okay, light turns yellow. A few people run the yellow light, they can make it through without penalty. You, turning left, waiting your turn, are left accelerating out of the intersection with the lights red. I'd hate to get dinged for that.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (-1, Redundant)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824422)

No, it's not. I understand your point about needing to run a red light to get anywhere in a lot of places (and I've been in that situation myself, much to my frustration), and the police may well ignore such cases because of it, but the fact remains that being in the intersection when the light turns red is technically illegal in every state in the nation. You may want to read your state's driver's manual to educate yourself on this point.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (1)

Muckluck (759718) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824316)

Even worse than that, around here (Alabama) you can get a ticket for "running a yellow light". If you speed up to pass through an intersection when the light is yellow, you can get a ticket (I have the insurance increase and paperwork to prove it). IMHO, not right, but no one asked me when they wrote the law and the judge disagreed with me when he enforced it...

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824356)

Another aussie comment, yes, they do it. The moment the light turns orange a speed camera turns on and if you are above the speed limit when it catches you, it takes your pictures and notes the speed.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824368)

And where's "around here"? Laws aren't a constant, in Canada as long as you enter on a yellow and have a path out of the intersection you're NOT "doing it wrong".

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (0, Redundant)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824470)

Canada probably has national traffic laws; the US does not. In the US, each state has its own traffic laws, although they are mostly similar. Being in the intersection when your light turns red is illegal in all of them.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (1)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824552)

Canadian traffic laws are by province, though for the most part they're fairly identical as well. No right hand turns on a red light in Quebec.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (1)

Pingmaster (1049548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824634)

no, there are specific differences based on province. In Ontario for instance, it's OK to turn right on a red light, where in Quebec it's not. However, regarding running a light, it's not illegal to enter an intersection on a yellow, or be in an intersection on a red, as long as you exit the intersection as quickly as safely possible (i.e. no sitting in the middle of the intersection, but if you have to wait for people running the light to turn left, you're fine) it is illegal though, to enter an intersection on a red light. So, the yellow light is no different legally than the green light, it's only there to warn people that the light will be turning red soon, and maybe they should stop.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824676)

Canada probably has national traffic laws; the US does not.

While I don't claim to be a traffic law maven, I do know there was no right turn on red in Quebec for the longest time, and still is at least in Montreal, meaning at the very least not all laws are national. Driver's license minimum ages are also rather different between provinces.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (4, Informative)

potat0man (724766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824696)

Being in the intersection when your light turns red is illegal in all (states).

You're mistaken about that [findlaw.com] .
Many states only require you cross the white line before the light turns red.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (4, Informative)

Chees0rz (1194661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824384)

Maine driver's ed taught me that when turning left on a solid green non-arrow (yield to oncoming traffic), you are supposed to enter the intersection while waiting for the chance to go. If the light turns red, all traffic is stopped, so you have the right of way to GTFO.

Of course it's been a while since I took driver's ed. and things may have changed. and what was taught may be a rule of thumb rather than law. but I will always fight a ticket if this is the case.

NOTE: I am NOT talkig about the case where you FAIL to predict the flow of traffic and end up blocking the intersection (can't proceed). By all means, write me up if I do that.

That's not true everywhere (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824396)

The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red. This is particularly true for turns, since we do trailing turn lights.

Re:That's not true everywhere (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824586)

The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red.

How are you supposed to ensure that when turning left and yielding to oncoming traffic? Do you just block the intersection for however cycles it takes for a gap to appear?

Re:That's not true everywhere (4, Informative)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824678)

The rule here is that your car must cross the line before the light goes red.

I was in court as a witness on a traffic ticket. A lady was ticketed for failure to yield right of way when she hit another car. She had a yield sign, the other car had a stop sign so the lady contested the ticket. The other car had already proceeded into the intersection when the lady moved past the yield sign and hit the other car. The prosecutor used the phrase "committed to the turn" to describe the other car, and the judge agreed so the ticket stood.

I would think going into the intersection before red, and continuing through the intersection after red falls into the same category. You are committed and it is legal to move ahead.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824452)

From what I understand, the bulk of the money from red light cameras is not from the running straight through the intersection through a red (how many times do you see that? Enough too support the thousands of tickets a day?). Most of it comes from making a right on red and not stopping but rolling through it. There's two parts - the cameras plus road sensors that measure speed. If they determine you didn't stop before the white line before turning (there's supposed to be some leeway so you can stop after your wheels roll over the line, but that data is apparently "secret" , they take your pic. Just from watching people before me at these intersections, it seems *most* people roll through without fully stopping.

Also, a lot of the systems take multiple pictures before and after. Many also store video of the incident so you look pretty foolish when you go to fight it and they show you the video with your face clearly visible as you roll through the red while making the turn

Wake up, idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824532)

I live in northern VA and there are several lights near my house with red light cameras, all of which have suspiciously short yellows. I've timed a few. With a stopwatch. All of them are under 3 seconds. People are forced to either slam on their brakes or run the red light.

Around here, if you're in the left lane, in a 45 MPH zone, and you're not doing 60 MPH, you WILL have a line of cars behind you, weaving in and out of traffic trying to pass you. Worse, we have a large population of slow drivers, who often plug up both lanes at 20-35 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. This causes severe tailgating and road rage.

It is safer to run the red than to slam on the brakes. At least there's a delay from one red to the perpendicular green. Just going to and from work (a 6 or 7 minute drive), I will pass two or three accidents a week caused by a driver slamming on their brakes and getting rear ended. That's ridiculous.

Oh, and here and DC, people taking left turns ALWAYS run red lights to avoid having to wait for the next one. That's one of my pet peeves, actually. There will still be people turning long after I've got a green light. Pisses me off and causes traffic. That one is just assholes, not a fault of the timings, though.

Re:if you're in the intersection and it's red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824538)

True. But stuff happens.

For example, you enter the intersection to make a left turn, and wait (i.e. yielding) in the intersection as oncoming traffic in the opposing lane goes by -- like you are supposed to. You aren't supposed to sit back on the stop line to make a left turn.

You wait, and wait, and wait, the light turns yellow -- now YOU have the right of way in the intersection. But do you pull out in front of that oncoming car that you aren't sure is really going to yield (maybe they don't know the rules or they do but they want to run the light)? Or do you wait a few more seconds to see if they really will slow down and stop like they are supposed to?

HA! You've waited a few seconds too long, the light has turned red as you begin to complete your turn. Here's your ticket.

I know the rules and I follow them diligently, but there are plenty of situations where your expectations about leaving the intersection before the light turns red don't turn out. Sometimes this is due to people running a red light illegally. Sometimes its because you're playing it safer than the other traffic is. Heck, I've seen cars *stall* in an intersection. Do all the cars behind them get a ticket?

The point is: a single snap of the camera does not necessarily make the situation clear. It's worse if the cameras are rigged.

Legality (4, Interesting)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824234)

Bah, forget the issues with the short yellow - what torques me is that here in Florida it's illegal for municipalities to legislate this kind of thing, but they do it anyway, and no one says boo.

I don't agree with this AT ALL but will post... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824240)

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is a 29-year old white male with a stocky build and a goatee. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.

Questioner: I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you're a nullo. Just so that my readers will know that this isn't a fake.

CmdrTaco: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).

Q: Thank you. That's a remarkable sight.

(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.

Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?

(pauses). Well, it really wasn't entirely my decision.

Q: Excuse me?

The idea wasn't mine. It was my lover's idea.

Q: Please explain what you mean.

Okay, it's a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Hemos before you'll know what happened.

Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.

Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Hemos's ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.

The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.

I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.

Q: In other words, you're a true masochist.

Oh yes, no doubt about that. I've always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.

Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Hemos is about my age and is a complete loser. Our personalities meshed totally. He's very dominant.

I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That's when I knew I was going to be with Hemos for a long, long time.

Q: What sort of things did you two do?

It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Hemos fucked me from behind.

Q: Ouch.

(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn't think I could take the pain, but Hemos worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.

Hemos enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I'd have to make if I wanted to stay with him.

Q: What did he say exactly?

Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I'd have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.

Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?

Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.

Q: How did that make you feel?

(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.

Q: But it didn't stop you from agreeing to Hemos's terms?

No it didn't. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.

Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Hemos. He gave me the rules right away: I'd have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my balls shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.

I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.

The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.

Q: Heavy stuff.

Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to lick his asshole clean after he took a shit, too. It was all part of a process to break down any sense of individuality I had. After awhile, I wouldn't hesitate to do anything he asked.

Q: Did the sex get rougher?

Oh God, yeah. He started fisting me every time we had sex. But he really started concentrating on my cock and balls, working them over for hours at a time.

He put pins into the head of my cock and into my sack. He attached clothespins up and down my cock and around my sack. The pain was pretty bad. He had to gag me to keep me from screaming.

Q: When did the idea of nullification come up?

Well, it wasn't nullification at first. He started talking about how I needed to make a greater commitment to him, to do something to show that I was dedicated to him for life.

When I asked him what he meant, he said that he wanted to take my balls.

Q: How did you respond?

Not very well at first. I told him that I liked being a man and didn't want to become a eunuch. But he kept at me, and wore me down. He reminded me that I agreed to be modified according to his wishes, and this is what he wanted for me. Anything less would show that I wasn't really committed to the relationship. And besides, I was a total bottom and didn't really need my balls.

It took about a week before I agreed to be castrated. But I wasn't happy about it, believe me.

Q: How did he castrate you?

Hemos had a friend, Zonk, who was into the eunuch scene. One night he came over with his bag of toys, and Hemos told me that this was it. I was gonna lose my nuts then and there.

Q: Did you think of resisting?

I did for a minute, but deep down I knew there was no way. I just didn't want to lose Hemos. I'd rather lose my balls.

Zonk restrained me on the living room floor while Hemos videotaped us. He used an elastrator to put a band around my sack.

Q: That must have really hurt.

Hell yeah. It's liked getting kicked in the balls over and over again. I screamed for him to cut the band off, but he just kept on going, putting more bands on me. I had four bands around my sack when he finished.

I was rolling around on the floor screaming, while Hemos just videotaped me. Eventually, my sack got numb and the pain subsided. I looked between my legs and could see my sack was a dark purple. I knew my balls were dying inside.

Hemos and his friend left the room and turned out the light. I lay there for hours, crying because I was turning into a eunuch and there wasn't anything I could do about it.

Q: What happened then?

Eventually I fell asleep from exhaustion. Then the light switched on and I could see Hemos's friend kneeling between my legs, touching my sack. I heard him tell Hemos that my balls were dead.

Q: How did Hemos react?

Very pleased. He bent down and felt around my sack. He said that it felt cold.

Zonk told me that I needed to keep the bands on. He said that eventually my balls and sack would dry up and fall off. I just nodded. What else could I do at that point?

Q: Did it happen just like Zonk said?

Yeah, a week or so later my package just fell off. Hemos put it in a jar of alcohol to preserve it. It's on the table next to his bed.

Q: How did things go after that?

Hemos was really loving to me. He kept saying how proud he was of me, how grateful that I had made the commitment to him. He even let me sleep in his bed.

Q: What about the sex?

We waited awhile after my castration, and then took it easy until I was completely healed. At first I was able to get hard, but as the weeks went by my erections began to disappear.

That pleased Hemos. He liked fucking me and feeling my limp cock. It made his dominance over me even greater.

Q: When did he start talking about making you a nullo?

A couple of months after he took my nuts. Our sex had gotten to be just as rough as before the castration. He really got off on torturing my cock. Then he started saying stuff like, "Why do you even need this anymore?"

That freaked me out. I always thought that he might someday take my balls, but I never imagined that he'd go all the way. I told him that I wanted to keep my dick.

Q: How did he react to that?

At first he didn't say much. But he kept pushing. Hemos said I would look so nice being smooth between my legs. He said my dick was small and never got hard anymore, so what was the point of having it.

But I still resisted. I wanted to keep my cock. I felt like I wouldn't be a man anymore without it.

Q: So how did he get you to agree?

He didn't. He took it against my will.

Q: How did that happen?

We were having sex in the basement, and I was tied up and bent over this wooden bench as he fucked me. Then I heard the doorbell ring. Hemos answered it, and he brought this guy into the room.

At first I couldn't see anything because of the way I was tied. But then I felt these hands lift me up and put me on my back. And I could see it was Zonk, the guy who took my nuts.

Q: How did you react?

I started screaming and crying, but the guy just gagged me. The two of them dragged me to the other side of the room where they tied me spread eagled on the floor.

Zonk snaked a catheter up my dick, and gave me a shot to numb my crotch. I was grateful for that, at least. I remember how bad it hurt to lose my balls.

Q: What was Hemos doing at this time?

He was kneeling next to me talking quietly. He said I'd be happy that they were doing this. That it would make our relationship better. That kind of calmed me down. I thought, "Well, maybe it won't be so bad."

Q: How long did the penectomy take?

It took awhile. Some of the penis is inside the body, so he had to dig inside to get all of it. There was a lot of stitching up and stuff. He put my cock in the same jar with my balls. You can even see the Prince Albert sticking out of the head.

Then they made me a new pisshole. It's between my asshole and where my sack used to be. So now I have to squat to piss.

Q: What has life been like since you were nullified?

After I got over the surgery and my anger, things got better. When I healed up, I began to like my smooth look. Hemos brought friends over and they all admired it, saying how pretty I looked. It made me feel good that Hemos was proud of me.

Q: Do you have any sexual feeling anymore?

Yes, my prostate still responds when Hemos fucks me or uses the buttplug. And my nipples are quite sensitive. If Hemos plays with them while fucking me, I have a kind of orgasm. It's hard to describe, but it's definitely an orgasm.

Sometimes Hemos says he's gonna have my prostate and nipples removed, but he's just kidding around. He's happy with what he's done to me.

Q: So are you glad Hemos had you nullified?

Well, I wouldn't say I'm glad. If I could, I'd like to have my cock and balls back. But I know that I'm a nullo forever. So I'm making the best of it.

Hemos and I are very happy. I know that he'll take care of me and we'll be together always. I guess losing my manhood was worth it to make that happen for us.

Two photos in Seattle (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824244)

Here in Seattle they use a two-photograph system. It must be unambiguous--you were not in the intersection when the light was red, and one in the intersection.

I still believe they cause more dangerous situations than they cure. Just from my observations.

Re:Two photos in Seattle (1)

SigNuZX728 (635311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824416)

As far as I know, they all use two photos. You may only get one in the mail but the city/county/state will have both pictures available for you to see.

Re:Two photos in Seattle (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824528)

Laws vary from place to place. In Australia, even if you entered the intersection before the light turned red, you must clear the intersection within two seconds of it turning red or you're still in the wrong. So if they fire the camera two seconds after it turns red, that's all they need. (This is part of enforcing "don't queue across intersections" - don't enter the intersection if you might be blocked from getting out the other side.)

And your little dog toto too... (1)

Raystonn (1463901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824272)

> If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it If they can't get you on running a red light, then they will get you on blocking an intersection. Either way, they'll get you in your end.

Old news. (5, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824286)

Seriously, red-light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money making. Often the contracts with the company providing the cameras sets a specific maximum length for the yellow light. Making it longer would bring penalties to the City.

Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.

The study noted here [sciencedaily.com] actually found that accidents went up after installing the damned things. Then again it was Florida...

Re:Old news. (5, Informative)

rueger (210566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824342)

Also check out The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, [lww.com] which last month reported that:

Despite reducing the number of cars entering this intersection during a red light, RLC do not seem to prevent traffic collisions at this monitored intersection. Alternative means of injury prevention must be investigated.

Re:Old news. (1)

Dan B. (20610) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824436)

Old new indeed.

A similar story Slashdot ran a few years ago about an entire Italian city being taken to court for lowering the time of the amber light on only the intersections where red light cameras were present!

And don't get as nerdy types started on the effectiveness of speed cameras...

Re:Old news. (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824438)

There's more accidents in Metro Atlanta too - it was reported in the AJC a few years ago.

I'm torn about the red light cameras. I've seen too many times zipperheads blowing through the light when oncoming traffic is moving and in the intersection. Just what are those people thinking! I have had people behind me go around me to run a red light after I stopped for it.

My brother was t-boned by a moron who ran a red light.

And even then the red light cameras don't seem to do much! Windy Hill Rd there's a big sign that says "Red Light Camera" and I've seen people still run it!

Of course (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824466)

Just ask AAA: The number one way to make intersections safer is double the lengths of the yellows. You take an arbitrary intersection that has accident problems and if you lengthen the yellow, that tends to do more to solve the problem than anything else. Of course as you note, long yellows are counter to profit from red light cameras.

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824654)

I wonder for how long though? By this, I mean I heard they found a large benefit from adding the middle brake light (not sure of the name for it, but the one in the rear windshield) in taxi cabs in NYC. Something like 20% fewer rear end collisions (I'm guessing on the percentage as it was years ago that I heard this) so the government made it mandatory. Only it seems the improvement only lasted for a little while. Once it became standard and people became used to it, the improvement basically disappeared. So it only helped while it was novel, is that the case with longer yellow lights? Do people compensate for it after a little while when they start to learn it is a "long yellow"?

Re:Old news. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824620)

Seriously, red-light cameras have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money making. Often the contracts with the company providing the cameras sets a specific maximum length for the yellow light. Making it longer would bring penalties to the City.

Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.

I can easily believe that, but lengthened yellow lights also lead to more people trying to rush through on yellow.

Anyway, why not have lengthened yellow and traffic cams? It seems that the main problem with cameras is when yellow is short enough, and/or laws are messed up enough, that all drivers have to break the rules in the course of normal driving, and then cameras report that.

So long as the length is sufficient to ensure that anyone driving safely can definitely do whatever he needs to do, and so long as the laws don't penalize things that driver cannot fully control (i.e. entering intersection on red is illegal, but leaving it is not - if, say, you entered on yellow) - I'm all for cameras.

Not in Austin (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824680)

Don't recall the specifics, but at least one study found that lengthening the yellow light acually reduced accidents more than installing cameras.

Indeed. Which is why when red light cameras came to Austin, they first studied all the 'bad' intersections and decided which should have their yellow light lengthened, and which should get a camera. I looked at a map they published showing which got which treatment, and it seemed like about half of the problem intersections were given longer yellows.

One of the intersections that got a camera I have a lot of personal experience with, and it's yellow was just fine before and unchanged after. The problem was people just flagrantly running the red. Seriously it was ridiculous.

Anyway, while I'm sure there's a contractor making a lot of money off the cameras, it seems to have been implemented fairly intelligently here.

Also, while contracts may stipulate maximum yellows, state laws often dictate minimums. I've heard (on /.) of various municipalities getting in trouble with the state governments for breaking these laws to increase red light camera revenue. Which is disgusting. Okay yeah law is sometimes arbitrary, but this law is fundamentally based on the laws of physics. :P

Depends on the location (0)

kypper (446750) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824288)

In some places, it's illegal to enter an intersection if the light is already yellow. That always made sense to me - yellow was the 'head's up' for cars behind the line to slow and stop.

Re:Depends on the location (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824386)

In some places, it's illegal to enter an intersection if the light is already yellow.

Bullshit. That would be impossible to comply with.

Re:Depends on the location (0, Flamebait)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824450)

You should get your brakes checked.

Re:Depends on the location (2, Funny)

JesseL (107722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824520)

So when you're traveling the speed limit and the light turns yellow when you're 6 inches from the intersection, your vehicle is still able to stop before crossing the line?

Re:Depends on the location (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824546)

You should get your brakes checked.

Good advice in general, but not an answer to the AC's correct statement. Keep thinking.

Hint: There's a reason traffic engineers have to consider the speed limit of the road and typical stopping distances when designing how long a yellow light lasts.

Hint^2: "stopping distance".

Re:Depends on the location (2, Insightful)

joggle (594025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824424)

Where in the world is it illegal to enter an intersection with a yellow light? What if you're going the speed limit (40mph) and just before you enter the intersection the light turns yellow? It would be impossible to stop and if you slammed on your breaks the guy behind you would probably run right into you.

Re:Depends on the location (1)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824444)

i doubt it is illegal to enter it when it's yellow, since there is something like a brake distance. the rule i know goes as follows: when it's green you drive. when it's yellow and you can still stop before entering the intersection, you stop, else you drive. when it's red you stop.

Re:Depends on the location (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824544)

In some places, it's illegal to enter an intersection if the light is already yellow. That always made sense to me - yellow was the 'head's up' for cars behind the line to slow and stop.

That must be in places where people have superhuman reaction times and massless cars. I know that I'd have a hard time bringing my car to a stop if the light turned yellow a tenth of a second before I get to the intersection.

Re:Depends on the location (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824650)

What's the point of yellow if it's just as restrictive as red, then?

Everywhere I've driven in my life, yellow is there so that you can brake if you can do so safely, but since obviously there may be some people who cannot do that - as they're already too close to the intersection - they can proceed, knowing that it is safe, as the other direction is still red.

they hit for right on red even when it is ok but t (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824300)

they hit for right on red even when it is ok but then some times you need to go to court to fight it even when you are right.

Re:they hit for right on red even when it is ok bu (1)

MaestroRC (190789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824618)

A lot of people around here (Knoxville, TN) raised hell about this topic. Everyone ticketed was validly ticketed because they did not STOP. TN law states that you may make a right turn on red, but only after coming to a complete stop prior to making the turn. Most states I've driven in it is the same way - if the light is red, you may approach, stop, then proceed with a right turn when safe to do so.

However, most people just look and cruise on through. Then when a ticket shows up they get their panties in a wad and actually learn the law, then they bitch about how no one stops for a right on red. Just because everyone does it doesn't make it legal.

I've personally been nearly rear-ended around here a couple of times due to people assuming I wasn't going to stop - even before the cameras were installed, I nearly always stopped before turning. Oh and I suppose it works, because I've also never been ticketed for it, even at red light camera intersections.

Two pictures... and then some! (5, Informative)

Siberwulf (921893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824304)

Some cities go a step further than just a picture. They will give you a picture before, a picture after and a 12-second video of you running the light. All that information can be found online via a URL given to you with your citation.

http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/Pages/default.aspx [plano.gov]

Re:Two pictures... and then some! (1)

Stephenmg (265369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824456)

In Kansas City, MO it has a video as well.

Re:Two pictures... and then some! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824502)

In Kansas City, MO it has a video as well.

Camera + video here in IL. Video nails you down while high res camera confirms it's you.

Government... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824308)

by the weasel, for the weasel, of the weasel.

How the cameras work. (4, Informative)

Jason Pollock (45537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824310)

From what I understand, the cameras are triggered by motion. If you cross a line while the light is red, you get photographed.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera1.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Re:How the cameras work. (1)

MaestroRC (190789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824694)

Correct. The cameras receive a signal lead (and that is all) from the intersection computer. Once the signal comes in that the light is red the camera goes on alert. They usually have their own embedded coils or similar, but may just be a motion trigger depending on the vendor.

If the camera system picks up a vehicle entering the intersection it then goes into action and tracks the vehicle to get sufficient quality images to get the plates and may also record video of the infraction.

Simple solution - slow your ass down and pay attention at intersections. if the light turns yellow and you're not right on top of the intersection, don't assume you can make it, just hit the brakes and stop. Once you see a couple T-bone accidents, this all becomes crystal clear and burns into your mind, because you'll never want to be the car that gets hit.

Race condition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824318)

Actually you need 2 photos:

1. taken just as/after the light turns red, shows that you are not in intersection.
2. taken later, with light red, shows that you are in intersection.

#2 must be taken during the same red light interval as #1.

Same story, different day. (1, Troll)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824336)

Didn't we discuss this before? Weren't there several outcomes?

1. You cannot face your accuser if it's a sentience-less robot.

2. car driving through red light ! = person paying fine

3. Governments hate their people.

Then why are they shutting a bunch of them down... (4, Interesting)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824344)

...if they are for "public safety" instead of revenue. I know of several cities here in Missouri that have turned them off because people stopped running the red lights. Instead of going to the press and talking about their success. No the departments were complaining because NO ONE WAS RUNNING THE LIGHTS and therefore not making any money and forcing them to "turn them off". They didn't put those cameras there to increase public safety. They did it to increase revenue.

Personal Income (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824358)

The entire ticket camera system was shut down in my entire city a few months ago, after it was revealed a couple congresscritters were getting kick-backs from the firm that installed the system. Or at least, that was the accusation, I'm not sure I've heard about it since then so I don't know what happened legally against him, but there you have it. The cameras are off for good at least. I believe one of the allegations was also that the yellow lights were too short, and the kickbacks were based on the volume of tickets given. I had a few coworkers that got those tickets mailed to them, and if you called the number given, the number was disconnected! Or busy or whatever. The whole thing was definitely a scam of some sort.

Sorry, you just flunked driver's ed. (-1, Flamebait)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824390)

If you are in the intersection before the light turns red, you have not run it, even if it takes a little while to clear it.

Um, nope. If you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you have run a red light. You're not supposed to enter the intersection if you can see you won't clear it before the light does turn red; that's why there's a yellow.

Re:Sorry, you just flunked driver's ed. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824440)

Sorry, you just flunked civics. Different states have different laws. Welcome to Florida.

Re:Sorry, you just flunked driver's ed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824660)

Depends on the state. In CT, the law is that you may enter the intersection (even on yellow, if it is unsafe to stop), and if you're still in the intersection when the light turns red, you must continue to clear the intersection.

Re:Sorry, you just flunked driver's ed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824682)

RTFA! The husband demonstrated the duration of the yellow was lower than the physical stopping distance time at the given speed limit. I.e. you do not have enough time to come to a complete stop even if you attempt to halt the instant the green turns yellow. This is school boy mathematics, maybe you should try it before spouting crap in future?

Re:Sorry, you just flunked driver's ed. (1)

tylernt (581794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824686)

If you are in the intersection when the light turns red, you have run a red light.

Not in my state. And if that's running a red light in some states, please tell me which ones so I can avoid driving in them.

Lights that count down (4, Interesting)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824398)

In my city, we now have cross walk signals that display a count down in large illuminated digits until the signal is going to change.

I know this is primarily for the benefit of pedestrians, but I like them as a driver as well. I now know with a greater degree of accuracy how long the green light is going to last, and if I need to be aware of an upcoming change to yellow and perhaps slow down, rather than speeding up to "make it".

This is particularly useful at an intersection I drive through every day on my way to and from work, which has a red-light camera.

Re:Lights that count down (1)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824486)

that's neat, they should introduce this in other places as well. although it might also lead to people accelerating when they see that there's only a few seconds left, hm...

Re:Lights that count down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824614)

I now know with a greater degree of accuracy how long the green light is going to last, and if I need to be aware of an upcoming change to yellow and perhaps slow down, rather than speeding up to "make it".

This reason is even more awesome during the winter months.

Re:Lights that count down (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824668)

I've seen traffic lights for cars (rather than pedestrians) which count down until next change. That was around Seattle, IIRC. Yes, I found it quite handy, as well.

Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (5, Interesting)

trentfoley (226635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824420)

I got busted by a red light camera a few weeks ago.

I received a letter in the mail showing two photos of my car. The first showed my car approaching the red light. The second showed my care turning right at the red light. Of course, I assumed that I had come to a complete stop at the red prior to turning right. I was all ready to fight the ticket on grounds that the two photos did not prove the city's case.

However, reading the entire contents of the letter led me to an http link where I could see the 'complete evidence' available to the city. Sure enough, I go to the provided website, enter a string of letters/digits and I am presented with a video showing my car rolling through the light without stopping.

I had no idea that they were capturing motion video as well as still pictures. Nevertheless, I was bummed.

But, even then, my wife, who is an attorney here in St. Louis, advised me against paying the ticket. It turns out that the ticket is issued by a 3rd party that operates the cameras, and not by the city police. There will be no impact on my driving record. The worst that can happen is it will be turned over to collections and placed on my credit report. At that time, I will simply hand it over to my wife and she will challenge the reporting agencies to provide proof that it was me driving the car, and that the debt is mine. Being unable to do that, they will be forced to drop it from my credit report.

Sometimes it is helpful to have a wife that specializes in US Bankruptcy law.

Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824570)

Does she have a sister? :D

Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824594)

But, even then, my wife, who is an attorney here in St. Louis, advised me against paying the ticket. It turns out that the ticket is issued by a 3rd party that operates the cameras, and not by the city police. There will be no impact on my driving record. The worst that can happen is it will be turned over to collections and placed on my credit report. At that time, I will simply hand it over to my wife and she will challenge the reporting agencies to provide proof that it was me driving the car, and that the debt is mine. Being unable to do that, they will be forced to drop it from my credit report.

Well you don't challenge the reporting agencies, you challenge the purported debtor; if they produce these photographs, the reporting agency might just accept their version and not remove it. Why not just pay it, considering you actually broke the law? I've been caught by these cameras, and never fought it because honestly the camera was right and I was wrong.

Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (5, Insightful)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824700)

But in this case you are just using the legal system in the worst possible way: To screw someone out of a legitimate outcome. If you were fighting an illegal ticket, or something the company legitimately did wrong it would make more sense.

Re:Red light cameras in St. Louis, Missouri (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824702)

she will challenge the reporting agencies to provide proof that it was me driving the car, and that the debt is mine. Being unable to do that, ...

WTF??

Thats what these photos are supposed to show in the first place!

San Diego red light scam (5, Interesting)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824446)

San Diego had this problem. The city either deliberately chose lights that already had short yellows or it set the yellows short after the cameras were installed. That was just one aspect of the fiasco that was the red light camera program. Some attorneys found that many tickets, which were originated by the red light camera company but supposedly "reviewed" by an officer, had in fact been issued without the review. The cop had gone on vacation and presigned a bunch of the "reviews" so people were in effect being ticketed by Lockheed. People who went to court and attempted to subpoena the red light camera design, software, and installation documents (so that they could assess whether the cameras were operating correctly when the alleged offense occurred) were threatened by Lockheed with a lawsuit for attempting to access trade secrets. There were many other questionable things that went on in the program that I've now forgotten about, but suffice it to say that the whole thing smelled so bad that the city terminated the program. It's since come back, but with major changes.

Is this a local incident? Of course not! (1)

smclean (521851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824458)

This is not a local incident. Cities have been caught illegally shortening red lights in a ton of different cases over the last few years.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit and many more at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yellow+light+short+red+light+camera [google.com]

countdown timer (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824554)

I've been to some places in Europe where the green light is a set of numbers, so you know exactly how much time you have. Here, with the blinking "don't walk sign", it's too bloody ambiguous, especially in winter when yellows should be 10 seconds... I really wish we had the countdown system, and it's not like it would cost a fortune to implement.

As it is now, I just detour the lights. I'd rather waste fuel than give that crooked system one red cent.

In my city, the company that set up the lights gets 50%, and the municipality gets the other 50%. Sounds like something that is systemically flawed to me. Law enforcement shouldn't be a for-profit thing. They're installed on a few intersections that are always backed up due to design flaw - there really should be overpasses installed at these locations, not cameras. When people have to wait 5 cycles to make it through the intersection, there's a reason that they're blowing yellow/red lights, and it's that something is dreadfully wrong with the whole setup.

Not just one still photo. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824560)

At least in Oregon's system, it takes two photos. One just before you enter the intersection (it assumes you're going to run it based on measured speed,) and one when you are already in the intersection. The photos have the date/time stamp, as well as a "light red for x seconds" note.

In addition, each monitored intersection also has a video camera that records 10 seconds before, and 10 seconds after the still cameras trip. This way, there is indisputable video evidence of your run, as well. (Yes, I've gotten one. I tried to fight it under the grounds that what I did wasn't technically "failure to obey a traffic control device", but rather "improper right turn on red"; only to find out that under Oregon law, they carry the exact same penalty...)

Late breaking news! (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824596)

The county called for an emergency meeting and unanimously adopted a resolution reducing their guidelines for yellows on 45mph zones from 4.5 sec to 2.25 sec. County spokeswoman Aimal Aiyer said, "It is the county that made the regulation calling for 4.5 sec yellows on 45mph zones. What it made it can unmake. 4.5 sec rule made sense in the sedate traveling era of the horse and the buggy. Now everything is fast, internet, highways, drugs everything is fast. So to move with the times we have reduced the yellows to 2.25 sec"

Well, that is how the bureaucrats think.

It's about physics (1)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824612)

A car going 30 mph travels 44 feet per second. (5,280 / 120 = 44). The stopping distance of a vehicle is a function of friction, speed, and mass. One of the calculators is here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/crstp.html [gsu.edu] . Just google 'vehicle stopping distance' and you have a choice of several calculators and you can look at the full formula, which is impossible to write correctly here. Assuming you have good tires, and all other things being equal, the stopping distance from 30 mph is 37 feet. Most studies on this issue assume it is fair to give a driver one second to determine whether to stop. First, you must recognize the yellow light, then assess the situation. Are you going downhill? Are the streets wet? Do you have a bowl of goldfish on the seat beside you? This is not trivial. Stopping on wet pavement requires twice the distance. Here's an article that says more or less the same thing: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/stopping-distances.htm [driveandstayalive.com] .

The basic issue here is that it will take you at least two seconds to stop from 30 mph on dry pavement, four seconds if it is wet. It takes one second to react and one second to stop (though deceleration throws a curve on time here). But in terms of distance this means you absolutely must be MORE than 81 feet away from the stop light to stop at all. My car is 16 feet long. If mine is average, that means five car lengths are required to stop. If that yellow light is less than two seconds long and you are within 81 feet of the light, you will go through on red. You have no choice; the laws of physics dictate it.

The last time I was stopped by the State Patrol for this I said, "Look. It was pretty close. I was doing 40 mph on a hill and the streets were wet. Plus, I thought about it. If I had just slammed on the brakes, I might have been able to stop, but the extra half second cost me." He let me go.

The idea expressed here that you just 'stop on yellow' is ridiculous. If your vehicle is within that window close to the light, you cannot stop, ever. Adjust for wind speed. If you are ever given a ticket for this, vidceotape the intersection to prove tghe length of the yellow light, compute the calculations, and take it to the judge.

In our area, they can ticket you, but it does not appear as a moving violation on your driver's record so your insurance will not go up. There is also some sentiment that putting in these cameras results in more rear-end accidents because drivers become hypersensitive. It's definitely a money-making issue.

Now with speed (1)

zorog (856212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824652)

Around Sydney, Australia they have begun installing red light / speed camera 2 in 1 systems, be careful not to speed up to make a light....

Thats why red-light cameras take two pictures. (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824666)

and most models should also state the duration of the preceeding yellow light.

The first picture is triggered when crossing the line (or a few cm behind), the 2nd is triggerd with a timer. So you can see if the car actually drove into the intersection (huge fine), or stopped, but simply missed the line. (smaller fine)

BTW: You also can get fined while crossing during yellow. (really small fine, and hardly ever prosecuted as the city would have to find proof first, that you would have been able to brake and stop instead of accelerating)

Logic dictates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31824708)

"Wouldn't you need two pictures — one just before the light went red showing..."

No, if you want to know whether a car entered an intersection after the light turned red, then the first picture must be taken at the same time or immediately after the light turned red that captures the car approaching from the direction of interest, and a second picture must be taken that captures the same car in the intersection.

Stopwatches and human error (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31824712)

I would like to see his standard deviation for the experiment he did. The article states:

The speed limit on Collier Boulevard, where she was cited, is 45 mph. According to county guidelines, the yellow light should be 4.5 seconds.

And that

Mogil said he tested it 15 times with an average of only 3.8 seconds

Thus the difference was reported as .7 seconds. While that does translate to a meaningful distance at 45mph, it still isn't much time. And if you're dependent on a person to see the yellow, click the stopwatch, then see the red and do the same, I'm not sure that you can count on a good set of measurements.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?