Where I live in Brooklyn, traffic enforcement leaves a lot to be desired. There's one intersection in particular, with a stop sign against one-way traffic, where car after car will go right through as if it weren't there — and this is in an area lined with shops and restaurants. As a pedestrian, you have to step off the curb and make eye contact with a driver to get them to stop, and that doesn't always work. Signaled intersections are generally far more predictable and easier to deal in my experience. There's plenty of red-light-running, but it's usually just the last car or two in the cycle.
In a place like Brooklyn, that might makes sense given the amount of cars and people (though I'd have to see it to affirm). This example comes from basically a residential area, so until they installed this light, cars could never really get up going very fast anyways. Now they can. In general, agree with the idea bout enforcement, too. That's why I would prefer physical barriers like little round-a-bouts or narrowers to slow flows. But that is a pipe dream in much of the US!
Separate but related issue: Curb cuts that drop pedestrian traffic to street level. How about elevating the crosswalk to make pedestrians more visible AND create what is in essence a speed bump. Intersections that do this are much more ped friendly!
Pretty wealthy college that is always at odds with the town. So I'm guessing some kind of goodwill thing. In terms of why, prob an admin stuck in traffic themselves not understanding the impact of the change. If you don't study/ think about these things much, you may just equate light = upgrade.
The first definitely did run through it, the second was close, but did not clear the zone before turning red. Technically can still get a ticket in some places for that. Sure, negligible, but simply illustrates the speeds we are dealing with now.
Yeah, I immediately scrolled down the comments after seeing him call it that. I'm very in favor of walkable cities, but you still need to learn the basic laws of the road if you're going to coexist with cars.
I mean, you can still get a ticket for not clearing the zone before the light turns red in some places. Admittedly, there is a grey area that police can judge (no one would give the 2nd car a ticket though). First car, yes.
Can you provide evidence of this? I would be surprised to see a law written this way. And even if an officer ticketed a driver for this, I would expect that it would be dismissed in court if evidence were provided that driver entered (any part of car in intersection before red) on yellow.
However, I agree with all your other points and hate cars <3
I actually think first car was hard to judge - car almost enters simultaneous to change from yellow to red. I played it back and forth a few times. Absent a camera, I would expect burden of proof to fall on officer, and this would be hard to prove
In fact, I slowed down to frame-by-frame (lol) and the front of the car is past the white line in the last frame where the light is still yellow. Next frame has light red and car clearly in intersection. So I think first example would fail in court, too
I appreciate you taking the time to go through the video and article! Here is Sac Bee on the issue: “If you misjudge the amount of time you have to safely go through the intersection while the light is yellow, then California Vehicle Code 21453 states you could face a penalty for running a red light.”
Again, murky. But this is the way it’s written. My guess to give cops a lot of discretion.
Where I live in Brooklyn, traffic enforcement leaves a lot to be desired. There's one intersection in particular, with a stop sign against one-way traffic, where car after car will go right through as if it weren't there — and this is in an area lined with shops and restaurants. As a pedestrian, you have to step off the curb and make eye contact with a driver to get them to stop, and that doesn't always work. Signaled intersections are generally far more predictable and easier to deal in my experience. There's plenty of red-light-running, but it's usually just the last car or two in the cycle.
In a place like Brooklyn, that might makes sense given the amount of cars and people (though I'd have to see it to affirm). This example comes from basically a residential area, so until they installed this light, cars could never really get up going very fast anyways. Now they can. In general, agree with the idea bout enforcement, too. That's why I would prefer physical barriers like little round-a-bouts or narrowers to slow flows. But that is a pipe dream in much of the US!
Separate but related issue: Curb cuts that drop pedestrian traffic to street level. How about elevating the crosswalk to make pedestrians more visible AND create what is in essence a speed bump. Intersections that do this are much more ped friendly!
Yes, good idea. And I almost never see them used in Southern California. Frustrating.
Oh, this makes me sad. This kind of thing shouldn't happen.
Great writing, too.
Thank you! Means a lot. Always inspired by your work and Strong Towns.
I don't understand why the university wanted this and was so eager to pay for it. Most of these places don't have money to burn like that.
Pretty wealthy college that is always at odds with the town. So I'm guessing some kind of goodwill thing. In terms of why, prob an admin stuck in traffic themselves not understanding the impact of the change. If you don't study/ think about these things much, you may just equate light = upgrade.
Another reminder that having more money doesn't always solve problems. Often it only makes you dumber.
The second person in your video did not run the light. Yellow is a caution and they were entering the intersection as it turned yellow.
The first definitely did run through it, the second was close, but did not clear the zone before turning red. Technically can still get a ticket in some places for that. Sure, negligible, but simply illustrates the speeds we are dealing with now.
Yeah, I immediately scrolled down the comments after seeing him call it that. I'm very in favor of walkable cities, but you still need to learn the basic laws of the road if you're going to coexist with cars.
I mean, you can still get a ticket for not clearing the zone before the light turns red in some places. Admittedly, there is a grey area that police can judge (no one would give the 2nd car a ticket though). First car, yes.
Can you provide evidence of this? I would be surprised to see a law written this way. And even if an officer ticketed a driver for this, I would expect that it would be dismissed in court if evidence were provided that driver entered (any part of car in intersection before red) on yellow.
However, I agree with all your other points and hate cars <3
I actually think first car was hard to judge - car almost enters simultaneous to change from yellow to red. I played it back and forth a few times. Absent a camera, I would expect burden of proof to fall on officer, and this would be hard to prove
In fact, I slowed down to frame-by-frame (lol) and the front of the car is past the white line in the last frame where the light is still yellow. Next frame has light red and car clearly in intersection. So I think first example would fail in court, too
I appreciate you taking the time to go through the video and article! Here is Sac Bee on the issue: “If you misjudge the amount of time you have to safely go through the intersection while the light is yellow, then California Vehicle Code 21453 states you could face a penalty for running a red light.”
Again, murky. But this is the way it’s written. My guess to give cops a lot of discretion.
https://amp.sacbee.com/news/california/article277931318.html