Comment by munchler
4 days ago
> I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span
Video actually shows two cars entering the intersection on yellow lights, which is legal. The rest of the article seems similarly exaggerated.
----
Edit: For those who disagree, please be aware that the stop lines are out of frame, so both cars are already in the intersection before they're visible on the video. You can get a better picture of what the intersection actually looks like here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/L37hZyvXs8BeWmFE8
Except the article doesn’t claim what the drivers are doing is illegal.
The article says that the street design causes drivers to speed up and makes the intersections unsafe.
Instead of drivers always stopping, or at the very least slowing down, when approaching the intersection, the new street design leads to drivers speeding up when approaching the intersection.
This is bad design for pedestrians irrespective of whether the driver jumps a light, the pedestrians cross when they shouldn’t be, or neither of them are doing anything wrong.
It will increase the odds of collisions, injuries and possibly fatalities.
> Except the article doesn’t claim what the drivers are doing is illegal.
The article states “… and I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span.” I suppose “ripping through” can be left up to interpretation.
However, in the video the author says “that person just ran a stop… a red light right in the middle of me filming.” Then the other he says: “I bet this guy runs the light. Yup, see, this person ran the light, too.”
“Running” a red light is an illegal act.
I think in both cases the cars should have slowed down and had plenty of time to stop before entering the intersection. But, evidently that’s legal in California, while the author indicates otherwise.
> The article states “… and I captured two drivers ripping through red lights in that short span.” I suppose “ripping through” can be left up to interpretation.
There really isn't enough information given to make a determination.
It looks like two of the vehicles traveling on Lemon "jump" due to a ridge in the middle of the intersection but that itself isn't an indication of speeding.
I don't know if California has a different law, but at least in my state it is very much illegal to accelerate into a yellow light.
Enforcement is basically non-existent, but it's absolutely "running the light" and "breaking the law" to accelerate into yellow lights.
6 replies →
The video and article specifically said these cars “ran the red light”, which they absolutely did not do.
you're supposed to slow down at a yellow to prepare to stop, not speed up to get through it, increasing speed through an intersection is inherently dangerous
the author's point is valid and we're falling into pedantry
5 replies →
I had to look this up. In California in particular, this is true, which surprised me.
Per a random law firm: California’s yellow light law permits drivers to enter an intersection during a yellow light. No violation exists unless any part of the car is over the stopping line when the light turns red. However, the law encourages drivers to slow down before reaching the intersection.
Whereas in, for example, Massachusetts, this would be considered running a red light.
https://www.wccbc.com/red-and-yellow-light-accidents/#:~:tex....
If this surprises you, consider the alternative: Driving through a yellow being illegal or unexpected doesn't make sense, given the finite stopping distance of cars, and reaction time of humans. This is because the yellow light is the first explicit indicator you must stop.
If this doesn't make sense still, picture this scenario: You are driving at the speed limit. You are 500ms from crossing the stop line threshold. The light turns yellow.
Your interpretation would make sense only if there were a (paler yellow?) light warning of the yellow light!
Yep, something something Chesterton's fence. If you couldn't drive through a yellow then you effectively have two lights go/stop which makes drivers choose between the safe but illegal thing of running the light or the dangerous but legal thing of slamming on their brakes.
You can't have an instant switch between go/stop which yellow— effectively meaning unsafe stopping distance go, safe stopping distance stop— solves very neatly.
1 reply →
In France, it is illegal to drive through a yellow light unless it would be dangerous to stop, for example if it required you to break hard. That part is up to the officer judgment.
In practice, I have never seen it applied, and it is only a small fine anyways, much less serious than running a red light. I guess it can be used as an excuse if the police really wants to pull you over.
Austria does that: 4 seconds of the green light flashing in order to announce the yellow light.
5 replies →
On the contrary, I think it could make perfect sense: What's written in the law is one thing, and how it's enforced is another; I would argue that the former should be done with consideration to the latter.
Based on my own experience, I'd estimate that well over 99% of traffic infractions go entirely ignored by the law: minor speed violations, unsignaled lane changes, rolling stops at stop signs, expired tags, cell phone usage, and yes, running red lights.
When the letter of the law is broader in scope or errs on the side of caution, that enables the police to exercise their judgment in enforcing it (with the obvious caveat that some police will abuse any power you give them). You could imagine a scenario where someone technically runs a red light but it's totally justifiable and safe (heavy load + moderate speed + short yellow + no other traffic) and another where someone technically makes it into the intersection on a yellow light but senselessly severely endangers public safety (busy intersection + rapid acceleration + traffic backed up on the other side of the light).
I would be okay with someone evading a ticket in the first case and getting one in the latter.
In the UK, if you're at all over the line when the lights change, you're considered "in the junction" and are expected to leave the junction -- the next phase should give you priority to do so. The only way to run a red light is to start crossing the line while the light is red -- although plenty of drivers will start to inch across while they're supposed to be waiting :P.
The most annoying scenario is where a driver has either stopped or inched forwards far enough that they can't actually see the lights any more and don't know when they've changed.
This is the law in Illinois, too. It, in combination with the way the lights are timed, makes some intersections particularly challenging for pedestrians.
The basic way the timing goes is: traffic light changes, pedestrian crossing signal illuminates, traffic going straight that squeezed in on the yellow finally clears the intersection, cars turning left finally get a chance to go, pedestrian can finally safely enter the intersection with approximately 10 seconds left to cross a four lane street, lights change again, cars start honking at the older person with mobility issues who could only get halfway across the intersection in the time they had available to safely do it, impatient driver from further back in the line who doesn't care to figure out why the person in front hasn't started moving even though the light has been green for five full seconds swerves into the right turn lane and guns it, narrowly missing the aforementioned older person with mobility issues as they blast through the intersection.
I'm wondering how you would know when the yellow light was going to come on.
Do you have some sort of countdown, or innate knowledge?
Because, otherwise do you just randomly stop at green lights guessing that a yellow light might come on? Or do you drive so slowly that you can stop in the width of the white line before a pedestrian crossing? Really, I'm trying to figure out how you don't ever enter just as a light turns yellow. Once you do, do you stop in the intersection or try to clear it before it turns red? I hope the latter.
For me yellow lights are a warning that a red light is coming. It should be long enough for cars to clear the intersection (in many states without gridlock rules even this is not the case for left hand turns).
My experience in Boston is that drivers try to beat the green light change and accelerate while it's still red.
> For me yellow lights are a warning that a red light is coming
Correct, yellow means "start slowing and stop before the intersection if you can do so safely, otherwise proceed". Red means "do not proceed if you aren't already in the intersection".
This is why the opposing traffic signal and walk signal will wait for a second or two after red: to allow people who entered on yellow to finish their transit across the intersection.
Indeed, in the author's own video where they incorrectly claim someone ran a red light, the author had no legal right to cross anyways, so there was no chance of the author getting injured unless they ran a red light at the crosswalk.
In short, the author seems most frustrated that the situation changed from everyone waiting on him, to him waiting a few seconds for others.
> Do you have some sort of countdown, or innate knowledge?
often, in the form of the pedestrian signal.
> try to clear it before it turns red?
This is the rule in much of the world, yes.
2 replies →
Just rewatched and agree they both entered on orange, which is legal. This clear misinterpretation makes me question the author's take as a whole. Did they consider that cars also regularly run stop signs? Is it possible that this is, in fact, safer for pedestrians, albeit more frustrating while waiting?
OT, but it fired me up a bit - people that enter the intersection on green or orange awaiting a break to turn left. And then don’t clear the intersection on red. Now they’re in everyone’s way. How do you get them to understand they’ve already “run the light” and just need to move?
As far as I know, that is both legal and standard practice in California, and at many intersections with traffic and no protected turn, is in practice the only possible way to turn left: there will simply never be a break in traffic, from the moment the light turns green until it turns red, and so without entering the intersection and then turning on red, it is simply not possible to turn left at all.
2 replies →
In some jurisdictions, this is literally how it works. You claim the intersection, wait for oncoming traffic to stop, then perform your turn. It's legal in jurisdictions where red means you cannot enter, like California.
The major problem is that on very congested streets, the driver won't know if the exit will be free of traffic when the light turns red. Blocking the intersection is illegal.
To a certain degree, it is a failing of Civic design and the ruleset. The solution is generally no left turns during peak hours, which is a duct tape fix
This is literally everyone where I live, and if you tried to wait before the intersection, people would be (rightly) incredibly angry at you. It just wouldn’t work. Nobody lingers in the intersection after oncoming traffic clears either.
Would you rather they floor it and beat the straight through traffic when the light turns green? 1-2 cars entering the intersection and then getting through when traffic clears on the red is less worse than the alternative.
4 replies →
This is why I always find it weird that in the US (and a lot of other countries) the stoplights are on the end of the intersection, instead of at the entrance. If they're at the entrance, there's no dillema - you can't cross the light if it's red. If it's yellow, you brake if you have time, but if not, it's fine to keep going - the opposing light is going to wait a few seconds before turning green specifically to avoid this.
This also encourages drivers to actually stop in the right place (since they can't see the light otherwise), and it's friendlier for pedestrians since it avoids drivers stopping on top of the crosswalk.
(I've also never heard of the turn-right-on-red rule anywhere other than the US. Over here in Portugal if it's fine to turn right while the light is red, there's just going to be a separate green/flashing light to turn right. A lot clearer!)
8 replies →
I remember my father telling me that was how it was supposed to be done, as the yellow light for oncoming traffic would convince them to stop and give you the time to complete the left turn. It only worked when they weren't also running the yellow light! These days I prefer waiting to turn so that I'm not stuck out in the middle of the intersection when the traffic light changes.
7 replies →
What difference does it make? The main point is that this design induces drivers to speed up even more than they're already speeding (and, this being North America, they're already speeding), at a dangerous point in time when pedestrians are starting to cross. It literally makes no practical difference whether they're entering on a very late yellow or a red.
Traffic engineers aren't blind to the fact that it's NA custom to (roughly) +5 on residential, +8 on state highways, and +5-15 depending on on the lane on interstates. People get up in arms about it on the internet for some reason while IRL the roads are just designed with this in mind.
2 replies →
Legality aside, is that not kind of the issue here? Lights in a high foot traffic area could incentivize people to speed up to make it before the red, which is less predictable and has cars traveling at faster speeds compared to a stop sign, which requires all cars to stop. Embellished yes, but point of the article showing that this intersection is now more dangerous to pedestrians stands imo.
Using stop lights to control this sort of high-traffic intersection is totally normal in the US. Stop signs are typically used for lower-traffic intersections. Subjectively speaking, I think drivers are more likely to obey a red light than a stop sign.
Perhaps the author of this article is upset that the neighborhood now has more traffic than it used to, but that's a different issue.
I'm not sure I've seen evidence that running stop signs is more likely, but even if that is the case which one is higher risk? I'd subjectively say running red lights is more dangerous as you have a higher chance of several pedestrians entering the cross walk all at once, or several cars going at once, since it causes people/cars to move in waves. I think its pretty clear that the author is upset that a stop light that increases risk for pedestrians, cost the school and city money, and provides minimal time advantage for cars was implemented.
Also, I'd like to point out that normal does not mean good, or best.
No, drivers in that neighborhood were used to stop at every stop while now a lot are passing through that intersection much faster to avoid the red light.
[dead]
Yellow generally means do not enter the intersection unless you are so close that you cannot reasonably stop. It is not legal to enter the intersection if you cannot clear it before the signal turns red. Exact rules and enforcement vary by state.
> It is not legal to enter the intersection if you cannot clear it before the signal turns red.
That does not appear to be the case in California, which this article is written about. It seems to be a bit confusing, because there are suggestions that the driver handbook suggests that you should follow the rule you note, but that the law itself has no such requirement.
In practice, in many areas of coastal California almost no one would stop at a yellow unless they felt they could not enter the intersection before it turned red, and doing otherwise would likely be seen as impeding traffic by many other drivers.
In CA we have many intersections where one wants to turn left, but there is not a dedicated left turn signal. When the light turns green, you pull out into the intersection. Ideally you pull out enough that the car behind you can also get into the intersection. On busy roads you may not be able to complete the left turn until the signal goes red. If you chose not to pull out, then nobody would ever be able to turn left. I believe CA passed a law some 20 plus years ago that you must be able to clear the intersection before the red light, which is in conflict with what is sometimes necessary. There are situations though where the direction you are headed is backed up, such that if you pulled out you could end up stuck in the middle of the intersection long after the red light. I believe the law was intended for this situation. So don’t pull out if your direction of travel is blocked.
Both may be legal, but the first one is unclear and is definitely unsafe. Safety requirements dictate a slightly different understanding of yellow light than is commonly used by drivers. For safety, yellow must mean "begin controlled deceleration immediately". The first driver had plenty of time on yellow to not be just barely entering the intersection on red. They clearly were not decelerating and had very likely sped up to beat the light. This unquestionably is a thing that drivers do all the time, and it's dangerous.
Why is it dangerous? (Unless they're breaking the speed limit to make the light, obviously.) Just the risk that they might misjudge the timing and enter the intersection after the light turns red? But lights have a built in delay before turning green to account for that.
Because vehicles are often already traveling at or above the speed limit.
Just as the yellow light is intended as a "start slowing down" but is interpreted as "speed up to beat the light", the speed limit sign is intended as a "do not exceed this speed" but is interpreted as "you must be traveling this speed".
If we assumed that most vehicles are traveling the speed limit or faster, which is the case in my experience, then accelerating further is like pouring gasoline on a fire.
1 reply →
This is very much wrong.
When a driver sees a yellow light, they must make a call: do I have time to safely slow down and stop before reaching the stop location, or not? If I do, then I must start slowing down right away - that much we agree o. But if I don't, then I mustn't slow down, as that is more likely to leave me in the middle of the intersection while the lights turn green for through-traffic.
> yellow must mean "begin controlled deceleration immediately"
This is not true in the strong form you used. There is a regime where there is no possibility you will be able to stop the vehicle in time using reasonable deceleration. Slowing does no good. There is also a regime where slowing will cause you to enter the intersection during the red light, and not decelerating will not.
That's ok. We can hammer out the details together, but the principle is true if the light turns yellow before you reach the intersection. Note that I didn't say how rapidly you need to be decelerating, and if the light has turned red before the car even clears the crosswalk, as is the case for the first car, then the driver sped up instead of slowing down.
Again, please be aware that the video does not show the entire intersection.
It seems like you're stuck on whether someone broke a red light law, but this isn't an article about the legality of dangerous behaviors. It's an article about making intersections more dangerous.
The first car isn't even through the crosswalk when the light turns red. Racing through a crosswalk to beat a light is the definition of dangerous driving.
The way I learned this was "in legal, out legal," meaning that you are not allowed to be driving in the intersection while the light is red (aka you have to be finished transiting by the time the light changes).
Is this not the law in California?
My understanding is that California has two relevant laws for this discussion:
21453 (a) which prohibits crossing the stop line when the light is red [1]. And 22526 (a) which prohibits entering an intersection when the exit isn't clear. [2]
You have to be able to clear the intersection if you enter it, and you have to enter it on green or yellow (except for turn on red after a stop), but you don't have to clear the intersection before it goes red.
Common practice (which might not be 100% legal) for unprotected lefts on green (where space permits) is for the first car to fully enter the intersection and the second car to roll over the line a bit, then for both vehicles to clear the intersection when opposing traffic stops which may be in yellow or red. The driver that's only a bit in the intersection can make a judgement call and stay slightly encroaching rather than clear the intersection if clearing seems inadvisable because opposing traffic was slow to stop.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
In my state you are allowed to exit the intersection while the light is red but may only enter while it's green or yellow. In driver's ed they taught us to enter the intersection while waiting to make a left turn so that we could complete the turn after the light turned yellow/red and opposing traffic stopped.
It is the same in most US states.
I believe most states it is LEGAL to enter the intersection(normally marked by a white line) before the light turns red.
Cross traffic MUST wait for cars to clear the intersection.
Not only legal, but safer than slamming on one's breaks.
Generally speaking if you're going the speed limit you don't need to "slam on your breaks (sic)" to stop before a light turns red unless you didn't have enough time to clear the intersection anyway.
Surely it depends how close you are to the line when the light turns yellow.
My partner slams on his breaks even though he goes below the speed limit and has plenty of time to clear the intersection. It's not just the speed.
Depends how far you are away from the light when it turns.
2 replies →
I disagree. The first car doesn't even cross their side of the pedestrian crossing before the red light blinks on, so they have had ample time to prepare to stop and are running a red light. The second car is more debatable but also had enough time to stop, as the light turns red while they are still in the middle of the intersection.
The second car definitely entered on yellow. It doesn't matter if they could have stopped. They have the right to enter on yellow.
The first car passed the first line when the light was yellow, but not the second line. The area in between is the crosswalk. I can't tell if "enter the intersection" means "enter any part of the area past the line where you're supposed to stop" or "enter the part past the crosswalk, where the roads actually intersect".
Does anyone know what the rule is?
It's well spelled out in vehicle code 21453 (a)
> A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b). [subdivision b allows for turns on red]
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
The fact people can't figure what the rules are is a problem in itself vs a stop sign where everybody knows you should stop.
1 reply →
I've sometimes wondered what the exact rule is with red lights. Presumably you're allowed to continue moving forwards if the front of your vehicle passed the stop line before the light turned red. But if you stopped with the stop line passing through your vehicle are you allowed to start moving forwards again while the light is red? (Whether that would be a sensible thing to do would depend on whether you're driving a long vehicle with just a tiny part of it behind the stop line, or a motorbike with just a tiny part of it in front of the stop line, but does the law distinguish those two cases?)
I don't think the law is so specific, but I suspect the right interpretation would be that you should pass through the intersection if the car is in a position where it would block other traffic the moment the light turns red; in any other circumstance, you should stop if the light is red, even if you passed the location where you'd normally wait.
For example, say you're entering the intersection on green/yellow, but the car in front suddenly stops while you're on the crosswalk, possibly not even seeing the light on the side of the road, but no part of your car is impeding the cross traffic. Well, even if the car in front now clears the intersection, if the light has turned red, you should almost certainly stop and wait for the next green light, rather than trying to clear the crosswalk: doing anything else is much more dangerous.
If your vehicle is ever fully stopped past the line, and the light is red, that would be considered a “blocking the box” traffic violation in most jurisdictions. You technically should not have entered the intersection at all without the ability to fully clear it.
In England, I thought it was only the "crossed out" intersections that you shouldn't enter unless the exit is clear. Rule 174 here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-...
Its only me, who think that 12 seconds of green light is just too small window. That's why every car try its best to pass through.
I had the same thought. I've been in places where the first one would supposedly get you a ticket, as you are intended to stop if safely able to do so. It looked like that might have been the case there, though it isn't clear at all.
The second wasn't even close to running the light.
I don't see why a re-design like this wouldn't have included both pedestrian and car infrastructure improvements. Tighten all the turn radii, add bump-outs to each corner, and you could have a signalized intersection that is better than it was before for both.
Freeze frame:
https://imgur.com/a/ASSeakh
> the stop lines are out of frame
Is the car in the freeze frame in a legal position given the red light? It would appear not.
There's no way to know from a single frame. We would need to know the sequence of events.
It's not against California vehicle code to be in an intersection when the light is red. It's not even necessarily against vehicle code to be in an intersection when the light is red for you and green for perpindicular traffic (although it's an imminent hazard, so you better have a good reason).
To show a red light violation, you need a datestamped image showing the vehicle behind the stop line with a red light showing, and a near in time image of it in the intersection on red, and probably another one to show that it didn't make an allowed right on red. Really, you also need evidence that the red light was steady, and not a flashing red light which would indicate four way stop and the driver could proceed after stopping. Typically, you wouldn't see red showing on both directions at the same time in a flashing red situation, but cameras are fickle.
Adding on, the frame before clearly shows a legal entry.
https://imgur.com/a/z7ZSvtD
The vehicle entered the intersection, by crossing the first line of the pedestrian crossing which is out of frame, while the light is yellow. The exit was clear when the vehicle entered the intersection, so there's no violation there, and it may proceed through the intersection. Cross traffic doesn't enter the intersection for a few seconds after it clears; and there are no pedestrians engaged with the intersection either, so there's no safety concern. The next car that goes through the yellow is fully in the intersection on yellow, so there's no question of a violation there, although again they were in the intersection on red although I think that one cleared before the perpendicular traffic got a green, unlike the vehicle in the images.
There is another line before. We don't really see the entire intersection.
Yes, you are correct. That's why I specifically did not address the car's entry into the intersection.
Given the red light, is the car in a legal position in the freeze frame?
5 replies →
The author is pissed off about the design of the intersection. If you have to litigate bullshit like this, surely you see, well, the intersection is poorly designed.
You are also litigating whether or not it's legal. A lot of traditions of California driving are legal and really dangerous. My dude, CVC doesn't even apply in a private parking lot for example, so you can accidentally kill somebody in one and legally face no moving violations. "Legal" is not an interesting criteria at all, it's misleading.
3 replies →
As a nearby Los Angeles resident, I can confirm that a significant percentage, say 30-40%, of drivers 1) don't stop at stop signs, and 2) routinely run red lights at intersections when few or no other vehicles are present. It's true that it's legal to enter an intersection when a light is yellow, but don't let this statement distract from the general traffic-lawlessness that prevails. Law enforcement is even less likely to follow the law (ignoring cases where lights and sirens are activated).
I think the defacto rule that many drivers follow is, 'if the intersection appears clear, I don't have to stop.' (I'm not advocating this rule, just saying what I think the rule is.) Cell phones and screens in cars have made this rule especially problematic because drivers aren't paying close enough attention to the road to ascertain whether intersections are clear.
This isn't a recent phenomenon in LA, but it seems to have increased during and since Covid. I'd love to find reliable data on traffic enforcement. The problem is cultural, but the apparent lack of enforcement seems to have expanded the population of scofflaw drivers.
There is local traffic culture in a lot of places. LA residents in particular don't like stopping at stop signs. Boston drivers turn left immediately when the light turns green even if other cars going the opposite direction have right of way. Texas drivers speed like madmen on freeways. New York drivers change lanes with reckless abandon.
Law enforcement officers in all these places never pull people over for this stuff.
One car enters the intersection on red.
That's false. The stop line for cars is out of frame in the video, and the driver has already passed it by the time the light turns red. You can get a better view of what the intersection actually looks like here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/L37hZyvXs8BeWmFE8
I think it depends on what one uses as the definition of intersection. Is it the actual point where the two roads collide, or is it at the stop line?
1 reply →
You can not say this without the caveat that it is location dependent. This is an illegal action in some cities and states. Like in California, where that video was taken, yellow means STOP if you can safely do so. Both of these cars had ample time to stop and chose to accelerate to make the light.
How can you tell both cars had ample time to stop? We didn't see how close they were to entering the intersection in the video.
They entered the intersection on a yellow light, which is perfectly legal if they could not stop.