Good work Brodbeck

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/08/11/14996651.html


Finally the facts are coming out. More to come in the Freep soon.

Interesting, maybe worthwhile to try. Though I think what's really needed is a radar to catch those who go through the traffic lights at speed above the posted maximum, regardless of colour. If people drove slower there would be less incentive trying to sneak through the amber.

I don't think it's that simple eViL tRoLl. Even at speed there is a point when approaching a light when significant indecision comes into play. I believe Jondo calls it the dilemma zone.

As you approach a light you often find yourself at a place in time when the light changes: do I slam on the brakes or do I boot it?

If you slam on the brakes will you progress too far into the intersection?

Will the bozo behind you stop in time?

If you boot it to make the light will you exceed the speed threshold?

If you don't slam on the brakes and don't boot it will you be caught going through a red light?

This is where human common sense comes into play when observed by the police. They can see what actually happened and apply thought to their actions.

grumpy old man wrote:I don't think it's that simple eViL tRoLl. Even at speed there is a point when approaching a light when significant indecision comes into play. I believe Jondo calls it the dilemma zone.

As you approach a light you often find yourself at a place in time when the light changes: do I slam on the brakes or do I boot it?

If you slam on the brakes will you progress too far into the intersection?

Will the bozo behind you stop in time?

If you boot it to make the light will you exceed the speed threshold?

If you don't slam on the brakes and don't boot it will you be caught going through a red light?

This is where human common sense comes into play when observed by the police. They can see what actually happened and apply thought to their actions.

Exactly, it is the decision making that is crucial at this point. And I think that if a driver already approaches a traffic light at maybe 65km/h or higher he may be more inclined to boot it as it is too fast for a safe stop. Enforcement of speed limits, on the other hand, may encourage drivers to to take the foot off the accelerator when they approach a (green) traffic light and therefore will make a safe stop more likely should it switch to amber.

That said, adding some time to amber is easy to implement. Would be interesting to see if such a simple solution also reduces running of red lights.

Evil there is no logical reason to not make ambers adequate by adding a second or whatever is deemed adequate. Unless you think it is logical and necessary to have your groceries fly through to the front seat when you have to stand on the brake. Understand the Dilemma Zone - it is the sweet spot that camera programs thrive on. This lucrative and unfair scheme is defeated by adding a second - do you not find that interesting?

By the way - it's confirmed that the Freep will cover this issue in Saturday's paper.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport1.asp

There's a lot of info there....with diagrams too.

grumpy old man wrote:I don't think it's that simple eViL tRoLl. Even at speed there is a point when approaching a light when significant indecision comes into play. I believe Jondo calls it the dilemma zone.

As you approach a light you often find yourself at a place in time when the light changes: do I slam on the brakes or do I boot it?

If you slam on the brakes will you progress too far into the intersection?

Will the bozo behind you stop in time?

If you boot it to make the light will you exceed the speed threshold?

If you don't slam on the brakes and don't boot it will you be caught going through a red light?

This is where human common sense comes into play when observed by the police. They can see what actually happened and apply thought to their actions.

This such decision happen today for me driving to work. Tail end of a green light and I knew it was going to change right away... being about 50-80 feet from the intersection. It hits yellow and I end up jamming on the brakes fearing the dreaded flash.I'm positive I would not have cleared the first marker in the intersection in that time while driving the speed limit. I barely made the stop as it is.

Is this going to be a big story? Front page and a big exposee? Or a story in passing.

And still, with scads of evidence suggesting there are better ways to IMPROVE SAFETY, our lawmakers completely ignore it.

There are still people out there that ignorantly state "just do the speed limit" and you'll be fine. Conveniently ignoring the very simple fact that no matter your speed there will almost always be a relative dilemma zone.

Those people seem to ignore the notion that smooth, free-flowing traffic is much more efficient and safer than stop and go with drivers moving at different speeds.

grumpy old man wrote:Those people seem to ignore the notion that smooth, free-flowing traffic is much more efficient and safer than stop and go with drivers moving at different speeds.

We need a synchronized traffic light system for that. And also we need more drivers willing to go with the flow and not floor the accelerator and try to get ahead of the crowd. Why can the morons not learn that going fast will just get you to the next red quicker and nowhere else.

Those morons will never learn.

And the city won't spend the money to create proper synchronized traffic lights. I see new lights installed today with no roadbed sensing devices allowing efficient such management.

i love it calling moron.
whose turn is it?

http://www.last.fm/music/Melanie/_/Brand+New+Key

More lights and no syncranization, means more wasted gasoline, which means more tar sands oil use which means more donations from Alberta companies to Harper's Conservatives.

Another thing that bothers me is that there is so little effort into moving traffic by the City traffic engineers department. Many stretches are purposely timed to have you stop at the next light for no damn purpose whatsoever. Or turning signals that are so short that the block-long line of turning cars can get 3 thru before waiting another cycle. Or the fact that there were not even left-turn signals around the busy intersections north of Polo Park - creating a situation where there was huge line-ups blocked behind the left lane while one car tries to turn every cycle - until I wrote about it in the papers and suddenly they created turn lights. It's damn disgusting and I have to wonder what people in that department think we pay them for. Poeple need to get on the phone and demand action on anything and everything that needs obvious address. Status quo, do-nothing politics will soon be a thing of the past. Good luck reaching that department or any other - thanks to their new tactic of preferred public disconnect - 311.

It's rant that like that make your candidate look like a fringe candidate.

Which is unfortunate.

Uhmmm - she's not my candidate. Not sure what part of that is an unfortunate rant - possibly the success that I've had after demanding action on necessary change? Maybe enligten me.

I should add to that "rant" - anybody know who supplies the 311 program service/contract to the City of Winnipeg? ACS.

Ranting is good, and complaning is good.

Jondo wrote:Uhmmm - she's not my candidate. Not sure what part of that is an unfortunate rant - possibly the success that I've had after demanding action on necessary change? Maybe enligten me.

Oh, I thought that you were part of the road awareness thing.

What I meant is that someone who complains, legitimate or not, and in this case there could be conspiracies and cover ups so it is a legitimate case regarding ACS. But when someone says something about it it's dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Okay. However - WiseUpWinnipeg will continue to advance strongly - with the facts including precedent. The ongoing, rhetorical debate of safety versus revenue has been concluded. It is about revenue - period. We will make that case without fail. Once the public is aware of the facts - the usual reactions/perceptions that you describe - will be moot - and they continue to not be a concern of ours through the difficult task of overcoming the propaganda fed to the public. This will soon be a job well done.

It was proven long ago by many studies done in the US that red light camera's significantly increase the amount of rear end collisions due to the afore mentioned "dilema" zone, while decreasing the amount of collisions caused by left turns etc. The net effect is no real increase in safety, just a change in the types of collisions seen and an increase in revenues. That's all this sysyem i about. Adding a longer amber would instantly dry up revenues from the cameras and thus will never happen.

Not entirely true. ALL accidents increase with the unecessary panic created by inadequate (and profitable) ambers. As well - the majority of "red-light runners" immediately do not exist - they were trapped by the inadequate time and couldn't resonably stop. Nothing else. Watch these recent clips. Rep. Barry Loudermilk is the Congressman that we will have return to Winnipeg to present his succesful legislated expose of this scheme in his state of Georgia. This time (soon) all media will attend and the Mayor will be forced to listen.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid34619011001?bctid=105915629001


http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid34619011001?bctid=83460103001


http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid34619011001?bctid=83816512001

I think maybe you misread Grumpyrom's post. He was agreeing with your position: short amber = bad= increased rear-end collisions = reduced side impact-collisions.

My recollection, maybe from some of your information Jondo, is that side impact-collisions are reduced because there are fewer peeps caught in the intersection thus less likely to be involved in a collision.

Yes, to clarify I was agreeing with Jondo. I was recalling a bunch of articles I had read in probably the early-nineties in motoring publications (Road and Track, Motor Trend etc.) that dealt with this exact same issue. Basically that red light camera's were nothing but a cash cow that only changed the make up of the traffic violations/collisions at the intersections they were installed at, and did nothing to actually reduce the number of violations/collisions. It's funny that they learnt this lesson over a decade ago in the US and had already come to the conclusion that a longer amber light was the way to go, and yet we still followed the exact same failed patern here. The only conclusion I can draw is that it's about the money and has very little to do with safety, even if that was the original intention.