If it's people continuing to turn left after the arrow turns red, I don't get mad... 

I cheer them on!!!  Everybody do the Locomotion!  Just pretend you're all one big railroad train and keep driving until the lane is empty!!! bwahahahaha

When I was young and preparing to get my license, the joke was that the yellow light meant "drive like hell to beat the red".  I always stop at the yellow light unless I'm within two cars after it turns.  And this infuriates my husband.  He knows the exact position the car can be in in the intersection before it's considered "running the red light".  That's why I do all the driving.  Yes people, I'm the person in front of you who stops when you feel there's plenty of time to make it before the light turns red.  I've never had a ticket, so I don't feel like "it's just another way for Big Brother to spy on us electronically and bleed us dry in the process".  Running a red light is against the law because it's dangerous.  The reason for the "Caution Light" has been twisted and redefined beyond recognition.  My Pop always stopped on the yellow light because that's what was expected.  No one worried about cameras because they weren't needed.  No one worried about abrupt stops because EVERYONE stopped on the yellow light.  Besides, what's the hurry?

Posted by Drummel:

The only thing I like about the camera on Ming Ave at the entrance to Hwy 99 is it reduced the number of people continuing through the intersection after the light changed red. I've been going through that intersection for many years on the way to work and before the camera, people would continue turning after the red light, blocking the green light traffic heading west. Now they stop before the intersection as they should.

The thing I don't like about the cameras is I go through two of them on the way to work and two of them on the way home. I don't like those odds.

The only time the odds are against you is when you don't stop.  Another "theory of Nancy" is that if you drive safely and obey the traffic laws, you don't have to worry about "big brother" and his camera.  ...he has no teeth unless you buy him some with your fine money.  (At least where running red lights is concerned.) You want to run red left turn lights?  Smile for the camera..and it pleases me greatly.

As a former Paramedic, I have been to thousands of traffic collisions.  As a result, I drive far more carefully than the average driver.  I know full well what even a "slow speed collision" can do to the occupants of a car t-boned in an intersection.  Much to the consternation of my fellow motorists,   I take my time, I enter intersections carefully (even when I have the green) and I never "insist" on my right of way.  As a result, I really don't have a problem with the tattle-tale cameras either as a revenue generator or as a method of slowing down careless drivers.

 I am constantly amazed at the level of idiocy displayed by otherwise intelligent people when they gget behind the wheel of a vehicle.  I have watched people shaving, doing their nails, eating, talking on the phone and watching XXX rated videos while driving to work in the morning.  On one occasion, it was painfully evident the couple in the car ahead of me at Stockdale and New Stine were having sex while waiting for the light to change.   What's with these idiots?    

Keep the cameras and get rid of the stupid people piloting two tons of metal on the public streets!

I'll agree on one point.  Idiotic, inconsiderate, careless, rude people cause accidents.  Not cameras.  So by getting rid of the lights we won't have any more problems with red light runners?  I notice a huge difference at California and Stockdale and also at Truxtun Ext. and Coffee since the cameras went up.  People are afraid to risk running the lights.  Now, I'm willing to concede that POSSIBLY it doesn't reduce accidents but it certainly DOES put enough fear in people that they start obeying the law.  At least at t hose particulat lights.  It's really nice to get to go on green for a change and not wait for the procession of cars running the light.  At this point I don't care about statistics..I care about my rights as a driver.  I don't have accidents because I sit and wait until the intersection is clear of law breakers..but I guess that's ok as long as the people against the cameras get their way.  My guess is they're part of the red light runner problems, otherwise why would it matter to them?

I may have to edit this later as I'm on my way out the door to work and probaly messed it up.  No time for editing you know..I have to beat those red lights.

I always seem to be the lone anti-government, pro-individual voice on this subject, but we don't need more red light cameras.  We need to look into why people here run red lights.

While some parts of Bakersfield have been improved, several inviolable laws of traffic physics remain in force in many parts of the city:

**  If it's green up ahead, it will be red when you get there.

** If it's red up ahead, it will still be red when you get there.

** Every green light is a "stale" green light.

** If you want to hit all green lights at each intersection, you must drive either 15mph or 80mph -- and there are plenty of drivers who do both.

** Panama is the main thoroughfare, yet the residential Akers seems to get 70% of the green time.

** Gosford is the main thoroughfare, yet the residential S. Laurelglen seems to get 70% of the green time.

** Ditto for Calloway vs. Slikker and Marby Grange.

**Left turn arrows should be accompanied by signs that read, "Left turn OK if safe."

I'm all for traffic safety, but let's distribute the responsibility between motorists and traffic engineers rather than continuing our current insanity -- which borders on enticement.

(And no, I have never been ticketed by a red light camera.  In fact, my record is clean.)

Here is more food for thought on the subject of red light cameras.  Cameras record every accident that occurs in the intersection.  What we don't know is how many unreported minor accidents occurred prior to the cameras.  I remember over the years hearing accidents outside of my home and I know that they were never reported.  Why?  Maybe the drivers didn't have insurance, or even a driver's license.  Sometimes the drivers feared rising insurance rates.  Sometimes the drivers involved simply made a private arrangement.  It happens all the time.  The point is that we really don't know for sure that there haven't always been more accidents than we know of at any given intersection prior to the installation of the red light cameras.

A year ago, KGET televised a story about Snitch Tickets, the fake tickets that the Bakersfield PD sends out, hoping to bluff unwary registered owners into identifying who was driving their car.  In case anyone reading this doesn't know, you can ignore a Snitch Ticket because it hasn't been filed with the court.  (See KGET's video at http://kget.com/mediacenter... ).  And for more Bakersfield-specific info on tickets, see http://www.highwayrobbery.n... .

Before it put the cameras in - and increased accidents, the City should have considered alternatives.  Here are a few facts, with the source url's noted at the bottom of the page.

One alternative to cameras is to lengthen the yellow light.  A 2004 research paper (fn. 2) showed a 69% decrease in violations when a yellow was increased from 4.0 seconds, to 4.5 seconds.  There are many other studies (fn. 1) with similar results.

Lengthening the yellow also reduces severe accidents.  Another 2004 study (fn. 3) by the Texas Transportation Institute found, "…an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 second is associated with an MF [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."

A second alternative to cameras is to improve street markings.  2005 research (fn. 4) sponsored by Florida's Department of Transportation concluded that improving street markings near intersections reduced red light running by up to 74 percent without increasing the likelihood of rear end collisions.

Without increasing rear enders!!!

Good luck, everyone.  In Bakersfield, the most dangerous thing is the City Council.

J.

1.  http://thenewspaper.com/new... (Red Light Camera Studies Roundup)

2.  http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/t... at

     page 67 

3.  http://thenewspaper.com/rlc... at page 2-20

4.  http://thenewspaper.com/rlc... at page 69

I live near the intersection of California and Stockdale and there are no more accidents since the cameras went in than before.  That's supposed to be the second busiest intersection in town and is a nightmare during rush hour.  It's VERY frustrating to have to sit there after your light turns green and wait for the red light runners.  Personally, I don't care how much money the city makes off the camera fines..(the company who makes them gets about 75 or so for each fine too).  I want to get through the intersection too ya know..how bout us each having a turn?    People are against big brother?  Great!  But laws are there for a reason and without them we'd have chaos.  Maybe the folks against the cameras would like to go back to 4 way stop signs..then no one is traveling fast enough to rear end anyone.  At least not if they're paying attention.    Oh..that was the point wasn't it?

One of the complaints I heard today is that the cameras are posted so people know to be careful there but the other intersections are fair game.  As far as I'm concerned they can put them at EVERY intersection..then maybe I could turn left when it's actually my turn.   I still think that if people are driving safely it wouldn't matter whether there were cameras or not.  That's where the real problem is.

>>>I still think that if people are driving safely it wouldn't matter whether there were cameras or not.  That's where the real problem is.

.

--->Nancy, the reason it does matter is because people are receiving citations for not violating the law!  If they're only going to send citations to people who run the red light, that's fine...  But entering an intersection on a yellow and having the light turn red on your while you're in the intersection is not unsafe or illegal.  Yet people still get cited for it as if they ran a red.

.

I'm waiting for my ticket to come in the mail someday.  I will fight it, and I will win.  Then I will ask the court for an injunction to prevent that from happening to others.

The city has told us that it would make it safer.If that was true, they'd post some here on the Eastside. The real reason as far as I can see it money. But there is something to be said for people slowing down for the yellow light!

People that stop for yellow lights need to back to drivers ed. 

.

Green = Go

Yellow = Go, but expect the light to turn red

Red = Stop

.

Get it straight dam it!

HOW MANY CITY AND COUNTY OWNED VEHICLES HAVE BEEN RECORDED RUNNING RED LIGHTS BY THESE CAMERAS?

OF THOSE,  HOW MANY WERE EMERGENCY VEHICLES RUNNING CODE-3?

LASTLY,  WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THESE CITY AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHO RAN A RED LIGHT IN A CITY/COUNTY VEHICLE (OR IS IT GOING TO BE COVERED UP - LIKE IT ALWAYS IS - IN THE NAME OF EMPLOYEE PRIVACY?)

Inquiring minds (and taxpayers) want to know!

So far I've seen several different expert opinions here from people who have gotten tickets.  I've never gotten one and I only know 2 people who have.  Neither of them were cited for entering on a yellow..they entered the intersecion as the light was turning red.  And what's this about the cameras only taking pics of people going straight?  They were set up for red light runners..what would be the point of having them record only the ones going straight?  The cameras at Stockdale and CA appear (to me) to be angled toward the left turn lanes.  Now I'll have to go back and look again but that's my take on it.  Also of interest..some intersecitons have TWO cameras aimed at traffic at slightly different angles and others only have one.

I still say I don't care.  I'm sick of drivers who feel entitled to drive in any manner they choose and tough luck for you if you get in their way.  I've got news for everyone..they have no more rights on that road than I have and I'm tired of feeling like a target.  We keep talking about personal responsibility and it extends to the roads as well as other places in our lives.  But no..like always..lets blame the city, the county, the state, the big governemnt...it's everybodys fault (including the asphalt) but let's don't blame the drivers.  It's that big bad evil city that just wants my dollars.

I don't doubt one bit that the city makes money off the cameras..but I seriously doubt they collectively sat down one day and said "hey !  I know how we can make some extra bucks.....we'll install traffic cameras."

YAWWWWWNNNnnnnnn  SOSDD no matter what the topic is.

If it's true that only straight-line red light runners are detected by the cameras, I'd imagine it's because it's the straight-line runners that are most likely to have a serious wreck.  A straight-line runner is likely to fly through at 75mph; left-turn runners usually roll through at 5-10 mph, closely following the car in front of them.

As for blaming the drivers vs. the city or traffic engineers, I don't consider it an either-or issue.  I blame drivers to the extent that they drive unsafely, and I blame traffic engineers to the extent that they entice red light running.

It's probably because they didn't buy/install enough cameras.  When driving in some cities, you'll notice 6-9 flashes from every camera in the intersection.  That's because they're taking ALOT of photos from all directions to show your route of travel over time.  That's the only way to ensure their citations hold up in court.

.

If bakersfield has one or two cameras that have one still photo of you in the middle of the intersection turning left, there's no way to show what you were doing, and you can successfully argue you entered the intersection on yellow and you were waiting until it was safe to make your turn.   If they didn't buy/install enough cameras (which it sounds like they didn't) they have probably written off violations for people making left hand turns and focused on getting a shot of your vehicle at speed in the intersection and arguing you couldn't have entered on yellow based on your position in the intersection when the light turned.

Of all the talk about media bias, this is an issue where I really do sense definite and seemingly deliberate bias.

Take Jeffs' point about the "red light runner" who also happened to be drunk.  We can likewise speculate on how many accidents were caused by drivers flying through a red while talking on the cell phone.

It seems whenever Big Brother wants to grow a little more, the media are almost always cheering them on, reporting the issue as favorably to the expansion of Big Brother as is practicable.  Sure, they might interview someone who is against this, but the ending tone of the story is always the same: this new boost in government control is portrayed as an unqualified good thing.

I am quite confident that speed cameras would likewise be portrayed as a complete Godsend by the media.  Nevermind the fact that there are times when every careful and responsible motorist, myself included, exercises a little "discretion" when faced with an emergency and the road is obviously clear.  Imagine being injured while out, or worse yet being shot, and driving youself to the Emergency Room three miles away.

The speed camera wouldn't care.

Jeffs wrote, "The current formula for government is to (1) create a crisis, and (2) offer a solution."

Sterling point.  I think we're converging upon the real nature of media bias.

I noticed the same pattern beginning in the 1990s, and continuing today:  People in the media have successfully fabricated a "moral crisis" -- the myth that we're in some kind of "moral decline" -- and, true to form, they are touting a government cure-all for this invented "crisis" in the form of electing "conservatives" who promise to closely police our personal lives and our reading and viewing habits.

I was conservative when conservative meant limited government.  It means this no longer.

Hooray for Hardliner!  I wish we could organize ourselves under the following platform:

.

1.  Limited, accountable government

2. Absolute right to self defense

3. Law following citizens right to own arms

4. Seperation of church and state

5.  End the two party system.  Candidates are elected through instant run off elections.