06-05-2009, 05:49 PM
That delay which keeps all lights red for a few (usually 3) seconds between cycles, while a sound idea, has been misappropriated from the amber light phase by traffic officials working in conjunction with the suppliers of red light cameras. Basically, it shortens the amber display, meaning you have to decide even faster whether or not to proceed through the intersection. Hesitate for only a fraction of a second, and you're proceeding on a red. If a camera is monitoring that particular intersection, you'll be sent a ticket. 
The thinking behind this and it's implementation was outlined several years ago in Car & Driver magazine: in essence, the suppliers of the cameras sold the idea to traffic departments based on the revenue that the cameras would generate - like a casino, they stacked the odds for the cameras. You'll find many studies showing a reduction in accidents at such intersections (usually done by those with a financial interest in the scheme) and just as many showing an increase in accidents, mainly due to the shorter amber period. Don't tell me that they couldn't have simply added that 3 second "all-red" interval into the existing cycle. Of course, that wouldn't have produced the true "desired results".
Wayne
The thinking behind this and it's implementation was outlined several years ago in Car & Driver magazine: in essence, the suppliers of the cameras sold the idea to traffic departments based on the revenue that the cameras would generate - like a casino, they stacked the odds for the cameras. You'll find many studies showing a reduction in accidents at such intersections (usually done by those with a financial interest in the scheme) and just as many showing an increase in accidents, mainly due to the shorter amber period. Don't tell me that they couldn't have simply added that 3 second "all-red" interval into the existing cycle. Of course, that wouldn't have produced the true "desired results". Wayne