Photo Radar

[Peikko 1,575]

That explains alot about why you're so in favor of drivers giving up their right to challenge tickets. Cyclists are the absolute worst when it comes to following traffic laws. In Colorado, most don't act like pedestrians nor like drivers, adhering to no guidance and behaving as if they are the lords of the road without respect for anyone else's rights to travel freely. Boulder has even codified some of this arrogance. I can just imagine what California cyclists are like - even worse.

Yes, of course, cyclists are simply unable to follow the rules of the road and just want drivers to instead. You are quite insane.

None of you want to take responsibility for your inability to understand how traffic lights and intersections work. Fabulous, I look forward to many more dangerous hours on the roads.

[Pooky 3,930]

Yellow does not mean stop. This is why there are so many problems.

From http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm

Solid Yellow- A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can’t stop safely, enter the intersection cautiously.

So, yes, the basic interpretation of a yellow light in California is to stop. The qualifier is "if it is safe to do so". But the intent is to indicate for vehicles to stop.

From my experience, the main reason for this is the lack of an appreciable delay in the sequencing of traffic lights in other directions, whereby as soon as the yellow light switches to red, the opposing direction (or whichever is next) goes straight to green without a delay.

Interestingly, in the UK, the traffic law is much clearer in its interpretation. No signal there means go. A green light only means proceed with caution, while everything else is a stop, with a qualifier statement following it.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Pooky

[Peikko 1,575]

That's what I've been wondering.

Yes, you wondered that before you got a ticket too, right? No, now you have a ticket, suddenly the traffic lights are unsafe for drivers to use. Please.

From http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm

So, yes, the basic interpretation of a yellow light in California is to stop. The qualifier is "if it is safe to do so". But the intent is to indicate for vehicles to stop.

From my experience, the main reason for this is the lack of an appreciable delay in the sequencing of traffic lights in other directions, whereby as soon as the yellow light switches to red, the opposing direction (or whichever is next) goes straight to green without a delay.

Interestingly, in the UK, the traffic law is much clearer in its interpretation. No signal there means go. A gren light only means proceed with caution, while everything else is a stop, with a qualifier statement following it.

If you want to safely negotiate an intersection, that is where your head will be at all times.

[slim 1,533]

Yellow lights have been shortened, to the driver's disadvantage.

The only disadvantage is a shorter yellow light leads to more traffic accidents.

A yellow light's duration should have no effect on whether folks stop or not. A yellow light does not mean stop or go - it means "determine if you can safely pass through the intersection before the other cars start going based on where you are RIGHT NOW and the speed you're travelling.

Now, it means, if you think that while maintaining your current speed you will make it more than halfway through the light

Different states have different laws, but for the most part, halfway through has nothing to do with it. Nor does your speed. What matters is you're not entering the intersection AFTER the light turns red. Traffic control signals are timed to allow for any traffic in the intersection to clear before crossing traffic is allowed to enter.

That's what I've been wondering.

The "they changed the timing of the yellow" defense will only work if it's illegal in your area or the timing is now too short to allow for safe passage through the intersection. Also, you need "expert" testimony, not "I took my stopwatch out there and it's .7 seconds now."

You can try that... but it's not likely to work because you're not supposed to be using the yellow to clear the intersection, only to evaluate if you can safely pass through before the crossing green is activated. Your best bet with yellow lights is to use a safety-based argument of why it was unsafe for you to stop.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The only disadvantage is a shorter yellow light leads to more traffic accidents.

A yellow light's duration should have no effect on whether folks stop or not. A yellow light does not mean stop or go - it means "determine if you can safely pass through the intersection before the other cars start going based on where you are RIGHT NOW and the speed you're travelling.

Different states have different laws, but for the most part, halfway through has nothing to do with it. Nor does your speed. What matters is you're not entering the intersection AFTER the light turns red. Traffic control signals are timed to allow for any traffic in the intersection to clear before crossing traffic is allowed to enter.

The "they changed the timing of the yellow" defense will only work if it's illegal in your area or the timing is now too short to allow for safe passage through the intersection. Also, you need "expert" testimony, not "I took my stopwatch out there and it's .7 seconds now."

You can try that... but it's not likely to work because you're not supposed to be using the yellow to clear the intersection, only to evaluate if you can safely pass through before the crossing green is activated. Your best bet with yellow lights is to use a safety-based argument of why it was unsafe for you to stop.

I don't know about Cali, which is awash in red ink, but here, I've noticed the camera lights flash during the yellow light, meaning that the photo is taken before the light changes to red. The courts here have a history of skepticism about photo radar, In 2002, they put the program on hold while concerns about manipulation were addressed and still show signs of unease with it. There are cases where tickets have been dismissed when proof that the driver has been purposely disadvantaged has been produced.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yes, of course, cyclists are simply unable to follow the rules of the road and just want drivers to instead. You are quite insane.

None of you want to take responsibility for your inability to understand how traffic lights and intersections work. Fabulous, I look forward to many more dangerous hours on the roads.

All it takes to be insane in your mind is having an opinion that differs with yours, That's a pretty low bar. Since you can't drive, your opinion is worth even less than usual.

[Peikko 1,575]

All it takes to be insane in your mind is having an opinion that differs with yours, That's a pretty low bar. Since you can't drive, your opinion is worth even less than usual.

I can't drive? News to me.

[Nessa 23]

the trick is never to wash your car so the license plate is illegible

[slim 1,533]

From http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm

So, yes, the basic interpretation of a yellow light in California is to stop. The qualifier is "if it is safe to do so". But the intent is to indicate for vehicles to stop.

Thanks for the link, Pooky.

I'll agree that in California you're supposed to stop if the yellow light signals. However, is "safe to do so" construed as slamming on your brakes?

If you want to safely negotiate an intersection, that is where your head will be at all times.

If you try to safely negotiate an intersection with your head in the UK, you'll be on the wrong side of the street!

[Peikko 1,575]

Thanks for the link, Pooky.

I'll agree that in California you're supposed to stop if the yellow light signals. However, is "safe to do so" construed as slamming on your brakes?

If you try to safely negotiate an intersection with your head in the UK, you'll be on the wrong side of the street!

Hahaha. If you approach an intersection as a hazard (which you should) then you will be traveling at a speed that allows you to safely stop should the lights change.

[slim 1,533]

Hahaha. If you approach an intersection as a hazard (which you should) then you will be traveling at a speed that allows you to safely stop should the lights change.

Or to proceed through if there is no hazard. Not slam on your brakes because you think a camera might flash and you could get a ticket.

Hahahah right back.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hahaha. If you approach an intersection as a hazard (which you should) then you will be traveling at a speed that allows you to safely stop should the lights change.

No matter how slow you're going, there will be a distance at which stopping is unsafe.

[Peikko 1,575]

Or to proceed through if there is no hazard. Not slam on your brakes because you think a camera might flash and you could get a ticket.

Hahahah right back.

If you do slam on your brakes, the driver behind should have enough room to stop in time, if they are in fact driving leaving the correct stopping distance. There is no excuse of this intersection behaviour. Perhaps you need to be flogged because clearly you don't understand what the point of having traffic regulations is. Would a flogging help you to understand?

No matter how slow you're going, there will be a distance at which stopping is unsafe.

Right, in that instance you continue through and?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you do slam on your brakes, the driver behind should have enough room to stop in time, if they are in fact driving leaving the correct stopping distance. There is no excuse of this intersection behaviour. Perhaps you need to be flogged because clearly you don't understand what the point of having traffic regulations is. Would a flogging help you to understand?

just admit it, madame, you're looking for an excuse to manhandle him.

ask him nicely and i bet he lets you

[slim 1,533]

If you do slam on your brakes, the driver behind should have enough room to stop in time, if they are in fact driving leaving the correct stopping distance. There is no excuse of this intersection behaviour. Perhaps you need to be flogged because clearly you don't understand what the point of having traffic regulations is. Would a flogging help you to understand?

It would help a whole lot more than being ticketed by a camera. I might actually increase my stopping distance and reduce my speed if I were to get flogged instead of mailed a ticket I know I could beat.