Posts: 605
Threads: 27
Joined: Dec 2008
While what you say may be true in some areas, the particular intersection is was inferring in my post didn't have a red light camera. This was back in the eighties, and not even LA had any red light cameras at the time. Also, while living in Az., the town I was living in had no red liight cameras, either, but almost every light had a 3 second delay, and subsequently longer periods of amber. Yes, it can be done, but it depends on the motive of the entity responsible for having such equipment installed.
I only know what I know, and I don't understand very much of it, either.
Member: AEA, American Legion, Lions Club International
Motto: "Essayons"
Posts: 5,859
Threads: 175
Joined: Dec 2008
As far as I know, all of the lights in Ontario have the 3 second delay (or longer), even though most intersections aren't equipped with the red light cameras. I don't have a problem with either the delay or the cameras, but skewing the odds by shortening the amber cycle is, to my way of thinking, unethical. It demonstrates to me that the real intent is to generate revenue, with the safety benefits only a side effect, even though they're touted as the raison d'etre.
In major urban centres, the cameras are a permanent fixture at many intersections, while, when they're used in less populous areas, they're portable and can be moved from site to site.
In this province, at least, proceeding through an intersection on the amber signal, when it would have been possible to safely stop, is a traffic violation with the same penalties as driving through a red, a fact of which many drivers are unaware. Even though livestock is prohibited in urban areas, combined with the shortened amber, that, to me, spells "cash cow".
Wayne
