Instant Justice to Red Light Runner

[Street Guardian USA]

 

[dashy]

Looks like right on the line. Cop might have hard time proving.

 

[Daywalker]

Light was actually RED before he made it in to the intersection.

 

[SawMaster]

Car with cam stopped in time, criminal could have too. You stop for yellow when possible, not race to see if you can beat it. Running a yellow when you can safely stop is the same as running a red. The nice Cop will probably explain that to you as he hands you your nice new traffic ticket!

Phil

 

[erkme73]

I don't know. I just watched that frame-by-frame. It's a tough call given the cam's angle. The cop likely had a better view. But, from what I can see, it certainly looks like his front tires crossed the stop bar before the red.




The moment that happens, you're "in the box" - and if happened before the light turns red, you haven't run the light. In fact, if you're caught "in the box" when the light turns red, you have right-of-way - and cross traffic, despite having a green light, has to wait for you to clear. If they hit you, they failed to yield. It all hinges on whether entry into the box was on yellow or red. One thing is for certain, if it's too close to call, there's no way that his split-second red-light running put anyone in harms way. Various DOT studies have conclusively determined that the single most effective way to increase intersection safety is to increase the length of the yellow cycle - followed by increasing the all-way-red timing.

 

[Street Guardian USA]

 

[dashy]

Here it's usually 2 seconds to get green after other sides have turned red. It is longer in the very big traffic lights.
If I was the copper, I'd be doing my best to fine this guy, however not all people are easy to deal with. The driver can take this to court and possibly win, it wasn't an obvious 1+ second, driver was right on the line.......

 

[SawMaster]

It's exactly this mentality which causes the problem. You stop for the yellow light if you can safely do so- that is the law and you have failed to obey a traffic sign or signal when you don't. And you can't be charged with running the light if you are 'in the box' when it changes to red.

The laws seem to conflict with each other here to some degree so which one do you use as a rule for your driving? Going by the 'box' rule encourages people to try to get 'in the box' when they see a yellow light as this truck did- he actually sped up to do that as most people do when attempting this. He could have stopped as was proven by the cam-equipped car which did that. He was required to stop since he could, therefore he was already in violation of the law even if he was in the box when it turned red. Whether he was 'in the box' or not before red therefore becomes a moot point.

A smart Cop would charge the first offense- not obeying the yellow- as that obviously occurred so cannot be defended against. They might also add running the red, a separate offense. Most Cops would charge with running the red light regardless, a higher offense which could not be well defended against unless you have some supporting evidence. If it comes to a "he said she said" thing, the Cop will always win even if they are wrong. Many of us have experienced that bias whether related to an intersection or not.

I actually thought about this exact thing when I was wondering if I should buy a dash cam, even though I always stop for yellow if I can. I want that supporting evidence for my side and with saved files from past driving I can show that I correctly do this as habit, which weakens the case against me further. I know within a foot or two where I can get my heavily-loaded work van stopped under all road conditions and there are times when I know I cannot stop before entering the box so I don't make the attempt. And that is what the yellow light is for- a time buffer to allow traffic to clear before the other side gets the green light. It's not a race to see if you can beat the red.

Intersections and the law isn't as simple as being 'in the box' before red, and those who treat them as if that is all that matters will eventually find themselves like this truck, with a shiny blue light approaching quickly from behind. I'd rather not have to spend my time going to court at all even if I prove my innocence and am acquitted. I think most here do the same (at least I hope you do!). So whether this guy was in the box before red or not is a moot point- they are obviously a bad driver anyway and should be made aware of that before they end up harming some else. It's a waste of time arguing about the line and the box and where the truck was when the light turned red. We should be pointing out why this is bad driving instead.

Just my $0.02 worth, YMMV, so argue away if you want to.
Phil

 

[MiiHere]

I don't know. I just watched that frame-by-frame. It's a tough call given the cam's angle. The cop likely had a better view. But, from what I can see, it certainly looks like his front tires crossed the stop bar before the red.

View attachment 17002


The moment that happens, you're "in the box" - and if happened before the light turns red, you haven't run the light. In fact, if you're caught "in the box" when the light turns red, you have right-of-way - and cross traffic, despite having a green light, has to wait for you to clear. If they hit you, they failed to yield. It all hinges on whether entry into the box was on yellow or red. One thing is for certain, if it's too close to call, there's no way that his split-second red-light running put anyone in harms way. Various DOT studies have conclusively determined that the single most effective way to increase intersection safety is to increase the length of the yellow cycle - followed by increasing the all-way-red timing.

While you might have the right of way while caught in the box, you can still get a ticket for it. A friend got a ticket for getting stuck in the box, but it was thrown out because she entered it while the light was green, but the cop gave her a ticket as if she had ran the light. They are two separate tickets.

I don't think the cop will have to prove anything. The judge primarily takes the side of the cop as he is meant to be more trustworthy (so we hope.)

 

[Rajagra]

Surely the point is he had plenty of time to stop safely and comfortably on amber, and made no effort to do so.
Not sure what the wording of the law is in the US, but I think the UK Highway Code puts it very well:
"AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident."

And that last part is important. People do take it to the other extreme and slam on the brakes as soon as they see amber, without checking what's behind them.

 

[erkme73]

Agreed - he should have stopped. But from a legal standpoint as long as the light wasn't red when he entered the box, he did not run it. Being ticketed for being in the box when the light turns red is applicable when caught in non-moving traffic. When someone fails to make sure the other side of the box is clear, even if they enter on green but the get stuck in the box, with no place to go - thereby blocking cross traffic - they have effectively blocked the intersection. That is an entirely different violation. If you're traveling at or near the posted speed limit, and are in the box when it turns red, there is no infraction.

Again, I'm not justifying racing to beat a yellow. I'm just stating the facts as they exist in my state. Incidentally, the last video posted by Pier28 is a perfect example of someone who is endangering the public. The white Buick that ran the light wasn't a split-second runner. That was someone who either was being chased by the cops, impaired, or didn't see the red light. I don't think anyone in their sane mind would CHOOSE to run a red light that was red for so long that cross traffic was already moving - at least not without checking first.

It's precisely these kinds of accidents that red-light camera advocates (and their manufacturers) like to show. Yet, cameras (or even an officer standing at that intersection) will not prevent these kinds of careless/brain-dead crashes. For a deterrent to work, the driver has to at least be aware that they're about to run a light.

Treating a yellow as a red is more dangerous (from a safety standpoint) than running fraction-of-a-second red light. While your car may have the ability to stop, a larger, heavier vehicle, or one with brakes not as good as yours, traveling behind you, may not. In our area, municipalities are removing red-light cameras faster than they went up. The primary reason cited: An increase in rear-end accidents from panic stops.

 

[Sunny]

Doesn't matter.
Once cop gives you a ticket, you are in the trouble regardless of fault or not.
Most of the times, paying is better than taking off from work to fight it and even if you fight, most of the time you lose.

 

[erkme73]

It's exactly this mentality which causes the problem. You stop for the yellow light if you can safely do so- that is the law and you have failed to obey a traffic sign or signal when you don't.

That's a new one on me. Our statutes define yellow as warning that the light is about to change to red, but do not define penalties for failing to stop for a yellow. Can you cite the law you reference?

 

[DT MI]

That's a new one on me. Our statutes define yellow as warning that the light is about to change to red, but do not define penalties for failing to stop for a yellow. Can you cite the law you reference?

For Michigan:

MCL 257.612 states in part, " ...vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection."

The bottom line is, unless it is dangerous to stop, you must stop when the light turns yellow. The only exception is when you are preparing to make a left turn and you are already within the intersection. You can complete your left turn after oncoming traffic has stopped, even if the light turns red.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(r1...objectName=mcl-257-612&highlight=vehicle code

 

[SawMaster]

The law is similar in most states. While I can't quote it exactly for SC, this was covered in a State-run Driver's Ed class I took to get points recovered from a traffic ticket a number of years ago. The instructor also noted that when approaching an intersection, you should expect the car in front of you to stop on yellow so that you don't hit them if they do. I've known a few people here who were hit from behind when they stopped for a yellow light- they were never charged but the car that hit them was.

Don't believe me just because I say it- look it up where you are or ask a local Cop.

Phil

 

[erkme73]

For Michigan:

MCL 257.612 states in part, " ...vehicular traffic facing the signal shall stop before entering the nearest crosswalk at the intersection or at a limit line when marked, but if the stop cannot be made in safety, a vehicle may be driven cautiously through the intersection."

I think the intent is pretty clear, but such a term is extremely subjective. Who determines what is safe? And safe for whom? The driver? The occupants? Imagine if you have stacked groceries in the back seat and the yellow turns red. Yes, you could stop safely, but you'd have your eggs scrambled - so instead you accelerate to avoid running a red light. Same could be said if you have a MACK truck behind you - do you want to chance his brakes working ok? Strikes me like Montana's "Safe and Prudent" unlimited speed limit. Very difficult to define something that isn't black and white.

The law is similar in most states. While I can't quote it exactly for SC, this was covered in a State-run Driver's Ed class I took to get points recovered from a traffic ticket a number of years ago. The instructor also noted that when approaching an intersection, you should expect the car in front of you to stop on yellow so that you don't hit them if they do. I've known a few people here who were hit from behind when they stopped for a yellow light- they were never charged but the car that hit them was.

Don't believe me just because I say it- look it up where you are or ask a local Cop.

Phil

I have several cops in my family, and extended circle of friends. They would be the last ones I'd ask. Without exception, if they don't know, they won't admit it - they'll make something up. I'd rather as a legislator or lawyer if I had any doubt. Which, I don't. There is not ticket for driving through an intersection on yellow. You may get one for excessive speed (as a result of speeding up to beat the light), reckless driving (if you endanger others), or some other infraction - but failing to stop for a yellow isn't one of them.

That's why extending yellow cycles makes intersections safer - it reduces that 'zone of dilemma' - allowing vehicles more time to clear the intersection. For certain vehicles and driving conditions, the minimum yellow time as defined for a given intersection is woefully inadequate. And some cities have been caught shortening them even lower than state minimums on, you guessed it, intersections with red-light cameras.

From the VT article linked above:

"The dilemma zone occurs when the driver has no feasible choice," he said. "In other words, the driver can neither stop nor proceed through the intersection before the light turns red. This can also occur if the approaching vehicle is traveling faster than the posted speed limit and/or if the driver’s perception and reaction time is longer than the design one-second value."

 

[Gibson99]

Doesn't matter.
Once cop gives you a ticket, you are in the trouble regardless of fault or not.
Most of the times, paying is better than taking off from work to fight it and even if you fight, most of the time you lose.

The point he was trying to make about red light cameras is that red light companies try to make it sound like red light cameras will PREVENT the types of accidents like the one above with the white Buick, when nothing could be further from the truth. Red light cameras came down in Houston too, because of corruption (shortened yellows being the most obvious) but also because they got put up without being voted on first.

 

[Deleted member 46308]

The point he was trying to make about red light cameras is that red light companies try to make it sound like red light cameras will PREVENT the types of accidents like the one above with the white Buick, when nothing could be further from the truth. Red light cameras came down in Houston too, because of corruption (shortened yellows being the most obvious) but also because they got put up without being voted on first.

+1

 

[Rajagra]

That's why extending yellow cycles makes intersections safer - it reduces that 'zone of dilemma' - allowing vehicles more time to clear the intersection. For certain vehicles and driving conditions, the minimum yellow time as defined for a given intersection is woefully inadequate. And some cities have been caught shortening them even lower than state minimums on, you guessed it, intersections with red-light cameras.

In the UK - probably elsewhere too - many traffic light controlled junctions now give a countdown for pedestrians letting them know how much time they have left to cross.
It seems to me this would be of equal use to motorists, and improve safety.
But of course the anti-motoring zealots will bleat that it will encourage drivers to cut it fine. I don't think that's true. Those who chance it will take chances either way. But giving more information allows responsible drivers to make informed decisions.

 

[DT MI]

In the UK - probably elsewhere too - many traffic light controlled junctions now give a countdown for pedestrians letting them know how much time they have left to cross.
It seems to me this would be of equal use to motorists, and improve safety.
But of course the anti-motoring zealots will bleat that it will encourage drivers to cut it fine. I don't think that's true. Those who chance it will take chances either way. But giving more information allows responsible drivers to make informed decisions.

That sort of exists now on intersections with separate pedestrian signals. Their signals start flashing or counting down long before the yellow light comes on for vehicles and I use that as an 'early warning system'.

You're absolutely right, however, when you say that responsible drivers will use whatever information at hand while those that don't care, or think they know more than the experts, or think they know what the law is but really don't, will do whatever they want.