7 ms·

Amber is prepare to stop not an instruction to do a crash stop from my memoires of the UK highway code. I.e. if you at or very close to the line you prepare to

Amber is prepare to stop not an instruction to do a crash stop from my memoires of the UK highway code. I.e. if you at or very close to the line you prepare to stop but if your very close you proceed carefully and make the turn.

vinay427 7y ago
In most countries, if you cross the line or enter the intersection while the light that applies to you is red, it is a violation. This means that unless the yellow light is long enough to account for approaching drivers' reaction times/distances and braking times/distances it can result in crash stops. Many lights in every country I've driven in have an insufficient yellow-light period given these considerations.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  And jurisdictions with auto-ticketing based on red-light cameras shorten the yellow light, driving up income by making it very hard to avoid running a (barely) red light.
  - seszett 7y ago
    That doesn't seem true, France for example has automatic cameras at traffic lights, and the yellow light has a duration fixed by law (3s on urban streets, 5s outside cities) and it has not changed since traffic light cameras were introduced. So that's one jurisdiction where your assertion is false. (Anyway, in most places the fines from the automatic cameras do not go to the same administration that decides the speed limits and places the traffic lights, so in the end the common accusation of "they only want to make money from it" doesn't make that much sense)
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      I didn't state that it was universal. It does happen to be true. You can look it up. There are even links elsewhere in this thread. Last I read about it was some time ago, but I doubt it has been fixed.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >That doesn't seem true, France for example He meant jurisdictions in America. Local governments here are infamous for shortening yellow lights. The companies that make automated cameras even have it in their contracts that the cities must do this.
      - optimiz3 7y ago
        > The companies that make automated cameras even have it in their contracts that the cities must do this. Citation?
        magduf 7y ago
        Let me google that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+lights+shorten+contracts+camera+companies https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+lights+shorten+contra... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/red-light-camera-controversy/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/red-light-camera-controve... "The contracts in place with red-light camera providers often specify maximum yellow light times, and impose financial penalties if the city lengthens the yellow period." More: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/10/chicago-shortens-yellow-lights-ticket-standard-makes-8-million-off-new-tickets.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/10/chicago-shortens... https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-light-1012-20141012-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yell... https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
        optimiz3 7y ago
        > The contracts in place with red-light camera providers often specify maximum yellow light times There's a lot of room for weaseling the way that's written. The contracts could specify maximum times to cover incorrect configurations like 2 minutes - that would be sensible. Technically the article is correct but it leads the reader to conclude malicious intent where there may be none. Only the DigitalTrends article talked about contract imposed maximums. In the Chicago article it looks like the city that was acting in bad faith. There is no established link between provider imposed contracts violating best practices.
bluGill 7y ago
The border is at issue: I could stop in time, but I'd have to stop as fast as my car is able which is uncomfortable. Oh, and I just completed my regular mirror check, and so I don't know how long the yellow has been up. Do I stop or continue on?
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  You should be looking ahead
  - Retric 7y ago
    That’s a little pithy, how about: When approaching a stoplight you should be looking ahead during the window when a green to yellow transition would be important information. Also, checking behind you has minimal value for drivers. Rather than any pattern it should be your absolutely last priority as it very rarely provides useful information and may be dangerous. That said, you should maintain basic awareness behind you.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      "Also, checking behind you has minimal value for drivers..." ...unless you are entering a situation where you may need to decide if stopping is preferable to some other option.
      - cgriswald 7y ago
        It’s an absurd statement anyway. It informs you of what other traffic is doing, where you can safely expect to maneuver in an emergency, and etc. In one case, I’d say checking my rearview was worth thousands of dollars and maybe three lives. When approaching a crosswalk and reducing my speed to stop for pedestrians I saw clearly the guy behind me wasn’t going to stop (he maintained his speed and was looking down, probably texting). I honked and flashed to warn the pedestrians who stayed out of the crosswalk. Then I took my foot off the brake as the other car hit me. The damage was minimal because I just let him push me. I pulled into a nearby parking lot. The other guy took off without stopping. It was a new car so no rear plate. If I hadn’t looked I’d have tried to stop, been pushed into the pedestrians anyway unless they noticed on their own, and my car would likely have been totaled.
exclipy 7y ago
Nope. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made says: "(9) An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as red, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it." If you interpret this to the letter, it means that if there's no car behind you, you should indeed come to a screeching halt at an amber light. If it's "safe" to stop, then amber means stop. Not saying I agree with this, but that's what the law says.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Not sure that doing an emergency stop unless really required is safe - you could always get a tank slapper or potentially case injuries to passengers if say they are reaching for something and bash their hand etc into the internal parts of the car.
- SamBam 7y ago
  Not sure how you read it that way. "Screeching to a stop" is absolutely not "safely stopped." Maybe we're using "screeching" differently. If I need to jam on the brakes such that there is a chance the car my skid, or someone with a seatbelt might be injured, that is not "safe," and the law says I should keep going. Absent those things, I'm not screeching to stop but just stopping short.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    There's a middle ground in there that's completely safe but also very unpleasant. I might exaggerate it as a "screeching halt". It should not be required by the letter of the law.
- chooseaname 7y ago
  "Screeching" to a stop is never a "safe" stop. A driver is traveling too fast for the conditions and the road if he has to screech to a stop when he sees yellow.
- 7y ago

vinay427 7y ago

In most countries, if you cross the line or enter the intersection while the light that applies to you is red, it is a violation. This means that unless the yellow light is long enough to account for approaching drivers' reaction times/distances and braking times/distances it can result in crash stops. Many lights in every country I've driven in have an insufficient yellow-light period given these considerations.

jtbayly 7y ago
And jurisdictions with auto-ticketing based on red-light cameras shorten the yellow light, driving up income by making it very hard to avoid running a (barely) red light.
- seszett 7y ago
  That doesn't seem true, France for example has automatic cameras at traffic lights, and the yellow light has a duration fixed by law (3s on urban streets, 5s outside cities) and it has not changed since traffic light cameras were introduced. So that's one jurisdiction where your assertion is false. (Anyway, in most places the fines from the automatic cameras do not go to the same administration that decides the speed limits and places the traffic lights, so in the end the common accusation of "they only want to make money from it" doesn't make that much sense)
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    I didn't state that it was universal. It does happen to be true. You can look it up. There are even links elsewhere in this thread. Last I read about it was some time ago, but I doubt it has been fixed.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >That doesn't seem true, France for example He meant jurisdictions in America. Local governments here are infamous for shortening yellow lights. The companies that make automated cameras even have it in their contracts that the cities must do this.
    - optimiz3 7y ago
      > The companies that make automated cameras even have it in their contracts that the cities must do this. Citation?
      - magduf 7y ago
        Let me google that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+lights+shorten+contracts+camera+companies https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+lights+shorten+contra... https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/red-light-camera-controversy/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/red-light-camera-controve... "The contracts in place with red-light camera providers often specify maximum yellow light times, and impose financial penalties if the city lengthens the yellow period." More: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/10/chicago-shortens-yellow-lights-ticket-standard-makes-8-million-off-new-tickets.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/10/chicago-shortens... https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-light-1012-20141012-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yell... https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
        optimiz3 7y ago
        > The contracts in place with red-light camera providers often specify maximum yellow light times There's a lot of room for weaseling the way that's written. The contracts could specify maximum times to cover incorrect configurations like 2 minutes - that would be sensible. Technically the article is correct but it leads the reader to conclude malicious intent where there may be none. Only the DigitalTrends article talked about contract imposed maximums. In the Chicago article it looks like the city that was acting in bad faith. There is no established link between provider imposed contracts violating best practices.

bluGill 7y ago

The border is at issue: I could stop in time, but I'd have to stop as fast as my car is able which is uncomfortable. Oh, and I just completed my regular mirror check, and so I don't know how long the yellow has been up. Do I stop or continue on?

C1sc0cat 7y ago
You should be looking ahead
- Retric 7y ago
  That’s a little pithy, how about: When approaching a stoplight you should be looking ahead during the window when a green to yellow transition would be important information. Also, checking behind you has minimal value for drivers. Rather than any pattern it should be your absolutely last priority as it very rarely provides useful information and may be dangerous. That said, you should maintain basic awareness behind you.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "Also, checking behind you has minimal value for drivers..." ...unless you are entering a situation where you may need to decide if stopping is preferable to some other option.
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      It’s an absurd statement anyway. It informs you of what other traffic is doing, where you can safely expect to maneuver in an emergency, and etc. In one case, I’d say checking my rearview was worth thousands of dollars and maybe three lives. When approaching a crosswalk and reducing my speed to stop for pedestrians I saw clearly the guy behind me wasn’t going to stop (he maintained his speed and was looking down, probably texting). I honked and flashed to warn the pedestrians who stayed out of the crosswalk. Then I took my foot off the brake as the other car hit me. The damage was minimal because I just let him push me. I pulled into a nearby parking lot. The other guy took off without stopping. It was a new car so no rear plate. If I hadn’t looked I’d have tried to stop, been pushed into the pedestrians anyway unless they noticed on their own, and my car would likely have been totaled.

exclipy 7y ago

Nope. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made says: "(9) An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as red, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it." If you interpret this to the letter, it means that if there's no car behind you, you should indeed come to a screeching halt at an amber light. If it's "safe" to stop, then amber means stop. Not saying I agree with this, but that's what the law says.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
Not sure that doing an emergency stop unless really required is safe - you could always get a tank slapper or potentially case injuries to passengers if say they are reaching for something and bash their hand etc into the internal parts of the car.
SamBam 7y ago
Not sure how you read it that way. "Screeching to a stop" is absolutely not "safely stopped." Maybe we're using "screeching" differently. If I need to jam on the brakes such that there is a chance the car my skid, or someone with a seatbelt might be injured, that is not "safe," and the law says I should keep going. Absent those things, I'm not screeching to stop but just stopping short.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  There's a middle ground in there that's completely safe but also very unpleasant. I might exaggerate it as a "screeching halt". It should not be required by the letter of the law.
chooseaname 7y ago
"Screeching" to a stop is never a "safe" stop. A driver is traveling too fast for the conditions and the road if he has to screech to a stop when he sees yellow.
7y ago