Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Red Light Camera
First time in 27 years, I am being prosecuted for jumping a red light - 0.9 seconds into the red. I have read a Department of Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 02/03, explains all the timings and on red light cameras says before activiation "at high speed sites there should be a delay of at least 1 second, being increased ....". High speed is >35mph. The light was amber for 3 seconds. To stop from 40mph, taking account of reaction time, the brake force needs to be 0.6g - this is around 100% braking effort in the wet. The lights expect you to not stop, and define a dilemma zone in which they will not change, or increase the amber time. I did not see the green to amber transition, so initially braked, and then accelerated. The lights expected me to cross safely. The learning experience is that if you do brake, brake very hard, abs 100% emergency stop is required. I THINK safety will be improved. In the US there has been a review of amber times and they are advising them to be increased to 3,9 secs in 40mph zones after complaints about red running cameras. Should I appeal?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dingbat35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
how do you know it was amber for 3 seconds if you didn't see the green-amber transition??
did you count the 3 seconds?
when the light is amber it is pretty obvious that the light is about to turn red.
amber is just an indicator to prepare you for the next light colour - it is not a signal in itself.
red-amber is the one before green so you should have known it wasn't going to go green.
why slow down and speed up again? - you thought you'd try to 'just make it', didn't you?
did you count the 3 seconds?
when the light is amber it is pretty obvious that the light is about to turn red.
amber is just an indicator to prepare you for the next light colour - it is not a signal in itself.
red-amber is the one before green so you should have known it wasn't going to go green.
why slow down and speed up again? - you thought you'd try to 'just make it', didn't you?
Good driving practice dictates that you should always slow down when approaching traffic lights. This is partly to allow for the possibility of other drivers ignoring the lights or 'kamikaze pedestrians' stepping out into the road but it's mainly so that you'll be able to stop when the light changes to amber.
Amber means 'stop'. Yes, I know that there's the option to continue if stopping will be unsafe but I've driven over half a milllion miles and I've only found it necessary to cross an amber light on fewer than 20 occasions. If you think ahead and always work on the assumption that the lights are about to change (as anyone who's studied 'defensive driving' will automatically do) there should never be any reason to go through a red light.
If you appeal, it's likely that the case would be heard by local magistrates who will know the junction involved. Irrespective of the figures you produce, the magistrates will simply work on the basis that "if we can stop in time, Mr/s Dingbat should also be able to do so".
Chris
Amber means 'stop'. Yes, I know that there's the option to continue if stopping will be unsafe but I've driven over half a milllion miles and I've only found it necessary to cross an amber light on fewer than 20 occasions. If you think ahead and always work on the assumption that the lights are about to change (as anyone who's studied 'defensive driving' will automatically do) there should never be any reason to go through a red light.
If you appeal, it's likely that the case would be heard by local magistrates who will know the junction involved. Irrespective of the figures you produce, the magistrates will simply work on the basis that "if we can stop in time, Mr/s Dingbat should also be able to do so".
Chris
PS: Since you obviously like figures, perhaps you'd care to check mine?
According to my calculations, travelling at 40mph, you'll cover nearly 53 feet in 0.9 seconds. If you were 53 feet over the line when the signal turned red, your chances of convincing any magistrates that your appeal should be allowed are almost certainly zero!
Chris
According to my calculations, travelling at 40mph, you'll cover nearly 53 feet in 0.9 seconds. If you were 53 feet over the line when the signal turned red, your chances of convincing any magistrates that your appeal should be allowed are almost certainly zero!
Chris
Yup you're all correct. The issue is the hesitation. I tried stop initially.
The lights decided that it was OK for me to proceed safely when they changed to amber. If you don't brake (hesitate) you easily make it across the junction with a spare second.
***The important learning is that if you decide to stop when the lights change to amber (and when the lights think you can proceed) then you need to brake at maximum braking otherwise you will find difficult to stop***
I disagree with slowing down in case the lights change - this reduces the traffic flow volume across the junction (more queues) - the lights are designed to cope with you driving towards them at constant speed - on high speed junctions you will find they will stay on amber for ~5 seconds in this situation as the lights can alter their amber period (and they record it for you on the notice). If you slow down they may take the opportunity to change.
The lights also increase the time that all priorities are red in the situation they detect an approaching vehicle is potentiaaly crossing on amber light to keep the junction safe. Note if they are at red before you enter their detection zones it is very unsafe.
The lights are intelligent. The issue is that if you mistakenly decide to stop when they transition to amber you need to conduct an emergency stop, as they are designed to expect you to carry on (safely).
The DOT recommend that the red light camera is not triggered until at least 1 second of red, which at 40mph means you are 58.67ft across the junction.
I'd be interested in "the time into red" settings used on cameras and whether they are compliant with the Department of Transport's Traffic Advisory Group recommendation of "at least one second".
Thanks for the responses - It is the hesitation that is the issue, you need to brake hard, or carry on - there is no leeway for in
The lights decided that it was OK for me to proceed safely when they changed to amber. If you don't brake (hesitate) you easily make it across the junction with a spare second.
***The important learning is that if you decide to stop when the lights change to amber (and when the lights think you can proceed) then you need to brake at maximum braking otherwise you will find difficult to stop***
I disagree with slowing down in case the lights change - this reduces the traffic flow volume across the junction (more queues) - the lights are designed to cope with you driving towards them at constant speed - on high speed junctions you will find they will stay on amber for ~5 seconds in this situation as the lights can alter their amber period (and they record it for you on the notice). If you slow down they may take the opportunity to change.
The lights also increase the time that all priorities are red in the situation they detect an approaching vehicle is potentiaaly crossing on amber light to keep the junction safe. Note if they are at red before you enter their detection zones it is very unsafe.
The lights are intelligent. The issue is that if you mistakenly decide to stop when they transition to amber you need to conduct an emergency stop, as they are designed to expect you to carry on (safely).
The DOT recommend that the red light camera is not triggered until at least 1 second of red, which at 40mph means you are 58.67ft across the junction.
I'd be interested in "the time into red" settings used on cameras and whether they are compliant with the Department of Transport's Traffic Advisory Group recommendation of "at least one second".
Thanks for the responses - It is the hesitation that is the issue, you need to brake hard, or carry on - there is no leeway for in
By appeal I assume you mean ask for a hearing at the magistrates� court. Before you consider how to proceed, you might like to consider some of the things their Worships will take into account when deliberating:
1.At 40mph you would travel 175 feet in the three seconds that the lights were amber. Since you crossed the stop line 0.9 seconds into the red you must have been 228 feet away from the line when the lights turned amber.
2.The minimum braking distance (using the Highway Code formula) from that speed is 120feet.
3.The issue of how much the �overlap� (before the camera operates) should be is irrelevant. The offence is crossing the stop line at red, not crossing the stop line x seconds after red. The overlap guidance is issued for the same reason as the (speed limit +10%+2mph) is used in speeding � to avoid excessive numbers of automatic prosecutions being launched for very minor transgressions.
4.If you did not notice the lights turn to amber you were not paying attention to what was probably the most important thing you should have been concerned with at that moment.
5.Your contention that you should not slow down when approaching traffic lights because it �interrupts the traffic flow� is false. The traffic lights themselves will interrupt the traffic flow far more than drivers slowing to a safe speed to negotiate the junction.
6.Speed limits are set as maximum values which should be maintained only whilst conditions make it safe to do so. Approaching a traffic-light controlled junction is probably among the most hazardous features you are likely to encounter and to drive at the speed limit when approaching such a hazard is not good practice. Similarly, if the conditions were bad enough to mean that your normal braking distance was substantially increased, you should not have been driving at the maximum speed allowed.
1.At 40mph you would travel 175 feet in the three seconds that the lights were amber. Since you crossed the stop line 0.9 seconds into the red you must have been 228 feet away from the line when the lights turned amber.
2.The minimum braking distance (using the Highway Code formula) from that speed is 120feet.
3.The issue of how much the �overlap� (before the camera operates) should be is irrelevant. The offence is crossing the stop line at red, not crossing the stop line x seconds after red. The overlap guidance is issued for the same reason as the (speed limit +10%+2mph) is used in speeding � to avoid excessive numbers of automatic prosecutions being launched for very minor transgressions.
4.If you did not notice the lights turn to amber you were not paying attention to what was probably the most important thing you should have been concerned with at that moment.
5.Your contention that you should not slow down when approaching traffic lights because it �interrupts the traffic flow� is false. The traffic lights themselves will interrupt the traffic flow far more than drivers slowing to a safe speed to negotiate the junction.
6.Speed limits are set as maximum values which should be maintained only whilst conditions make it safe to do so. Approaching a traffic-light controlled junction is probably among the most hazardous features you are likely to encounter and to drive at the speed limit when approaching such a hazard is not good practice. Similarly, if the conditions were bad enough to mean that your normal braking distance was substantially increased, you should not have been driving at the maximum speed allowed.
Speaking as a non-professional here, I think it comes back to the oft-quoted (and admittedly, trite) adage: "only travel at a speed such that you can safely stop if there's a hazard". It would seem to me that you weren't.
I take your point about the hesitation being your downfall, but that's your problem, surely, not "the system's". So if some "old dear" were to hesitate even more, should the amber be extended even more?
I take your point about the hesitation being your downfall, but that's your problem, surely, not "the system's". So if some "old dear" were to hesitate even more, should the amber be extended even more?
JudgeJ argument is flawed at point 1 by making a wrong assumption that the vehicle is travelling at constant speed. In the situation described, the distance is probably ~90 -120ft, and the lights expect you to carry on through. There is +/- 0,5 seconds to make your decision. I will agree that there is time to stop (point 2) - but note that an emergency stop is required.
Point 3, I would point to evidence from US and Canada that they have considered traffic light timings in great depth and changed their policy and increased amber timining as a result of this issue. The guidance for DOT is a 1 second delay period before the camera activates - I have not seen any explanation of why they make this recommendation. The 10% is a speeding issue. Further on point 3, I have seen UK traffic light calibration procedure and timings are not required to be checked or calibrated below 1 second!
Regarding point 4, one has to accept there will be (short) times the lights are un-sighted to a driver caused by high vehicles in the line of site- lorries and busses for instance.
Point 5 - the lights choose when it is "safe" to interupt traffic. They even expect people to pass (safely) on amber. The issue is when a driver decides (wrongly) to stop, an emergency stop is required. This is why the US and Canada reviewed amber light timings and increased them.
The issue I am raising is whether the amber timing is itself sufficient and safe. Quite clealry I went through them.
Point 3, I would point to evidence from US and Canada that they have considered traffic light timings in great depth and changed their policy and increased amber timining as a result of this issue. The guidance for DOT is a 1 second delay period before the camera activates - I have not seen any explanation of why they make this recommendation. The 10% is a speeding issue. Further on point 3, I have seen UK traffic light calibration procedure and timings are not required to be checked or calibrated below 1 second!
Regarding point 4, one has to accept there will be (short) times the lights are un-sighted to a driver caused by high vehicles in the line of site- lorries and busses for instance.
Point 5 - the lights choose when it is "safe" to interupt traffic. They even expect people to pass (safely) on amber. The issue is when a driver decides (wrongly) to stop, an emergency stop is required. This is why the US and Canada reviewed amber light timings and increased them.
The issue I am raising is whether the amber timing is itself sufficient and safe. Quite clealry I went through them.
I�ll not get too involved, dingbat. I was simply trying to demonstrate the sort of things the Bench will consider should you request a hearing.
I will say this, however. You are over-complicating the issue. Whether the lights �anticipate� that you will go through on amber, or what the camera delay is set at, or whether you brake and your speed is not constant is all immaterial. Amber means �stop�. If you were travelling at 40mph and the amber light appears you have 175 feet in which to come to a halt. The Highway Code suggests that in good conditions you can come to a halt in 120 feet. This includes �thinking� � or decision making -distance and does not require you to perform an emergency stop but simply to brake promptly and efficiently. If you were unable to come to a halt in this time for any reason (including bad road conditions or being unsighted behind large vehicles) you were not driving at a speed appropriate to the prevailing conditions.
The magistrates will not concern themselves with arguments you may make about the traffic light timing or any of the other points you have raised. They will simply be looking for evidence that you crossed the stop line when the lights were red. If you did you are guilty and no amount of mitigation of the kind you cite will reduce the penalty.
My advice (for what it�s worth) is to pay the fixed penalty if it has been offered and move on (but not before the lights have turned green!).
I will say this, however. You are over-complicating the issue. Whether the lights �anticipate� that you will go through on amber, or what the camera delay is set at, or whether you brake and your speed is not constant is all immaterial. Amber means �stop�. If you were travelling at 40mph and the amber light appears you have 175 feet in which to come to a halt. The Highway Code suggests that in good conditions you can come to a halt in 120 feet. This includes �thinking� � or decision making -distance and does not require you to perform an emergency stop but simply to brake promptly and efficiently. If you were unable to come to a halt in this time for any reason (including bad road conditions or being unsighted behind large vehicles) you were not driving at a speed appropriate to the prevailing conditions.
The magistrates will not concern themselves with arguments you may make about the traffic light timing or any of the other points you have raised. They will simply be looking for evidence that you crossed the stop line when the lights were red. If you did you are guilty and no amount of mitigation of the kind you cite will reduce the penalty.
My advice (for what it�s worth) is to pay the fixed penalty if it has been offered and move on (but not before the lights have turned green!).
Dingbat35, you have been given a lot of good advice by fellow ABers.
But there is something you said that I can't get my head round.
You said, 'I did not see the green to amber transition, so initially braked, and then accelerated'.
Surely if you did not see the green to amber transition you were not giving the road your full attention. You should have seen the lights, and if you intend to appeal, and then volunteer this information, I don't think you will be very successful.
Also, if you admit that you started to brake and then accelerated, you won't win many friends in court.
Obviously I don't know the road or the circumstances at the time you were caught, but I think you know that deep down you are in the wrong and really it's your pride that is hurt, and now your trying to dig your way out of a hole.
You came on AB asking for advice, so I'm sorry if this is what you didn't want to hear. I think everyone at some point has done something we shouldn't have done, especially on the road, and I don't want you to think this is a 'holier than though' type of letter. Best wishes
But there is something you said that I can't get my head round.
You said, 'I did not see the green to amber transition, so initially braked, and then accelerated'.
Surely if you did not see the green to amber transition you were not giving the road your full attention. You should have seen the lights, and if you intend to appeal, and then volunteer this information, I don't think you will be very successful.
Also, if you admit that you started to brake and then accelerated, you won't win many friends in court.
Obviously I don't know the road or the circumstances at the time you were caught, but I think you know that deep down you are in the wrong and really it's your pride that is hurt, and now your trying to dig your way out of a hole.
You came on AB asking for advice, so I'm sorry if this is what you didn't want to hear. I think everyone at some point has done something we shouldn't have done, especially on the road, and I don't want you to think this is a 'holier than though' type of letter. Best wishes
-- answer removed --
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Good Morning Boxing Day Birds!
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Editor's Blog20 mins ago
