Did you run a red light?

I am absolutely not a fan of fixed or hidden speed cameras, but red light cameras are legitimately good because you have zero reason or excuse to go through a red or speed through an intersection.

Avoiding an accident is always a valid reason for breaking a traffic law.

For example, on a two lane road I'll move into the left lane if there's a cyclist on the right shoulder, if the left lane is clear.

As for a red light, my pedal will be to the metal if my buddy is bleeding out in the passenger seat. Is that far-fetched? It happened to a friend of mine at Boeing. He didn't get his friend to the hospital in time.

I suppose the camera would have a great shot to prove this heroism, and if you couldn't get dismissal for the ticket under these extraordinary circumstances, you'd be one gofundme away from turning a profit from the outrage/sympathy legions.

sorry about your friend's friend.

I wouldn't mind paying the ticket if I thereby avoided an accident or got someone to the hospital in time.

I'm merely pointing out these absolutist statements are wrong.

Does this happen often?

Police and emergency vehicles do it all the time. And sometimes, you get the terrible job of being an emergency driver.

More often, cars at a red light need to clear a path ASAP for emergency vehicles approaching from behind. The cars at the front of the line have nowhere to go except past the intersection, running the light.

Yup.

As always, use your best judgement rather than blindly following rules. This is also why cops, prosecutors, judges, and juries have discretion about applying the law, because the law simply cannot be blindly applied.

(Which is why I object to mandatory sentencing laws.)

You can always fight a ticket if you have a legitimate reason behind it. Whether or not the approving party will see your reasons as legitimate is another story.

I am a volunteer EMT who has run thousands of calls.

If someone is "bleeding out" in that they have an uncontrolled hemorrhage driving faster is never the preferred option.

Generally speaking there are two types of hemorrhage:

1. Those that can be controlled through direct pressure and the body's clotting ability.

2. Those that cannot be controlled through direct pressure and the body's clotting ability.

If the hemorrhage is type 1 the best course of action is to calm down, slow down, and apply direct pressure while the patient is immobile until the bleeding stops. Driving fast will only stress the patient and may possibly lead to additional bleeding through jostling or poor application of direct pressure. Once the bleeding has stopped you can travel to the hospital at a reasonable and prudent speed.

If the hemorrhage is type 2 the only course of action is to apply a tourniquet. Once the tourniquet is applied you can proceed to the hospital at a safe pace. It is impossible to drive fast enough to save someone with an uncontrollable hemorrhage unless you are within 180-to-300 seconds of a hospital. A tourniquet can be anything, including a shoelace, belt, or torn-up shirt.

Even if the hemorrhage is a type that cannot be stopped by a tourniquet or pressure, like a chest wound, driving faster will likely not help because without applying an occlusive bandage to the wound(s) the patient will likely be dead in minutes. An occlusive bandage is any airtight barrier, like a piece of plastic, that can create a seal needed to allow for adequate respiration.

In all cases treating for shock is more important than speed. For non-EMS personnel the only preventative measures for shock are: stop bleeding, wrap patient to retain body heat, and place patient in a position of comfort.

When it comes to bleeding driving faster without basic interventions does little-to-nothing to improve the outcome for the patient, and a lot to increase the chances of creating more than one patient.

Driving faster than is reasonable is called "diesel therapy" and the only times I have used that is for breech presentations during childbirth, which are also the only times I've heard my paramedic sound scared and we've run some gnarly calls.

If you come across someone who has amputated their leg with a chainsaw and you are five minutes from the hospital at maximum speed and EMS is 30 minutes away, it is better to lie the patient down, keep them still, apply a tourniquet to the appendage, do whatever is necessary to warm them (including putting them in an idling car, preferably lying down, with the heater at maximum), and call 911 than it is to throw them in a car and drive fast.

True, but I am not a trained EMT.

Although I would drive fast, I would not drive recklessly, as I am well aware that causing an accident would do nobody any good.

Don't worry, the control of external bleeding is basic first aid, no EMT training necessary.

What I said is the exact same stuff they teach you in Lifeguard training, and if 15-year-old me can learn it, anyone can. Never took it, but babysitter training probably covers it as well.

https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/first-aid/first-aid-tr...

One issue has been jurisdictions shortening the length of yellow lights in order to catch people running the red light as a means of revenue generation.

Should that be a federal standard? Is it in most modern countries?

You have zero reason or excuse to be speeding, other than personal selfishness.

What about speed limits that were created for the purpose of revenue generation and not safety?

One example: https://www.speedtrap.org/california/lone-pine/

Complaining about "going 90mph on a 65mph speed limit" is not a "speed trap"; a speed trap is a situation set up in such a way that many well-intentioned people make an honest mistake. Things like confusing signage, sudden and/or unusual change in the speed limit, and so forth.

This is just someone sour because they got caught speeding. For reference 90 mph is 145 km/h, it's pretty fast, and the limit in CA seems to be 70 mph at the most. Driving at 90mph is always wrong unless you are rushing someone to the hospital or similar emergencies.

Except some municipalities with large red light camera revenue streams use bad math to justify unsafely short yellow light times in order to increase ticket revenues.

More details here: https://redlightrobber.com

The revenue from traffic tickets and other fines should not go to any level of government. It should go to NGOs. Then law enforcement would cease to be a for-profit operation.

I’ve avoided several collisions by making the snap decision to go ahead and run a stale yellow (knowing I technically was running a red). Some maybe warranted a moving violation if I’d been pulled over, and I’d (erm) cop to that if it were the case, but these cases have all been distraction by trying to avoid other driving dangers. Others were straight up design failures I couldn’t avoid if I’d tried, usually lights timed to make stopping impossible. In every case, I’d rather run a light than smash vehicles together to follow the rules.

It's complicated: the presence of a red-light camera decreases the rate of right-angle crashes, but increases the rate of rear-end crashes - people about to miss the light will stomp on their brakes instead of scooting on through. It's not clear there is any benefit, other than to the profits of the private companies typically contracted to operate the cameras.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/...

Red light cameras are proven to reduce the most dangerous intersection crashes (T-bones) at the expense of a slight increase in rear-end collisions (which are the fault of the second driver for following too closely, and likely both drivers for speeding.)

Before anyone starts bleating about companies changing cycle times: that's only happened in a few areas and most municipalities and states have caught on to the scam. It's an easy legislative fix to require light timings be based off federal standards, which they should be anyway.

They fill me full of dread and anxiety. Surely that reduces life expectancy?

Likely not as much as a risk of an F150 ramming into the side of your car?

I paid 700 bucks at a red light camera in the middle of an empty intersection at 2pm on a Saturday in Culver City, CA. It came out of nowhere. It felt like an obvious money grab

Did you run the red just because it was quiet, or do you normally just run reds?

Yeah I normally run red lights. I’m trying to fight the system. It definitely wasn’t because I was taking the GRE the following monday and I wanted to scope the place out. I like the stress of my parents getting a ticket in my life.

Also a couple months after, then Culver City stopped the red light traffic camera program

Did you run the red?

The red light came out of nowhere? How fast were you going?

Traffic enforcement should REQUIRE a police officer to be physically present at the time of the incident OR a retroactive issue related to an accident that happened.

The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections.

There aren't enough cops to go around.

I don't get this line of reasoning.

A police officer doesn't need to be present for code enforcement (ie. property inspections etc..).

A police officer doesn't need to be present for parking enforcement.

A police officer doesn't need to be present for toll fee collection enforcement.

Why should police then be present when violating traffic rules? What makes speeding or running a red light so meaningfully special that its enforcement cannot be automated, but violating parking rules can be?

> The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections.

Cameras would be the exact same type of encouragement, and not be nearly as disruptive or dangerous as a cop pulling someone over.

What gives?

Cameras are treated as revenue streams, not safety improvement devices. That's the cover story that's sold to the public, and then it's not unheard of for the light timings to be adjusted to increase revenues rather than promote safety at the intersection.

If an office is stated at an intersection it is an important issue. Similar in spirit to warrants as an important step in violating people's privacy.

> Cameras are treated as revenue streams

But that's just like your opinion man.

> not safety improvement devices.

But they are. Speed and red light cameras reduce injury and death. I want myself and my family to live in a city where we won't get randomly murdered or maimed. The carrot isn't working on drivers, it's time for the stick.

> Similar to warrants

It's not at all. A warrant is invasion of somebody's home because executive power has reason to belief crime is going on. A speed camera invades no-ones privacy, and just registers violations of traffic rules.

It's obvious--automated enforcement is effective and consistent, and drivers are used to breaking the rules because human enforcement is neither of those things.

Also increasing the cost of enforcement is a good way to get less of it. mjevans clearly just doesn't want more traffic enforcement.

A person has to be present for all of those things - at least, if you want them to stand up to even the most casual challenge in a court of law.

The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

Is a person present with automated tolling?

And wrt court challenge, I mean, the photographic evidence is right there, car running red light, can't be more clear. Why would it be dismissed?

And Why does every crime need witness? Plenty of prosecutions on photographic or forensic 3videnc3 alone.

Also, is traffic violation a crime (is it, genuinely asking (?))

Tbh, this often feel like people rummaging around the couch cushions for reasons (not saying you, link much appreciated, til)