thestaton,

I wasn't even aware that a "formula" or general guideline existed, but now that you mentioned it, it seems very logical: one second of yellow per every 10mph of speed limit. Perhaps they should add an extra one second and a half to take into account the overs a little bit. For example, having a yellow to green transition of a 50mph speed zone last at least 6.5 seconds in duration.

If reducing accident rates as RLR has indicated can simply be accomplished by the re-timing of a redlight [or even a series of them to smooth the flow rates of traffic] then I must assume the same most apply to each phase or phase transition such as the red to opposing green.

Given your experience in Delaware with that t-bone accident you witnessed, logic only dictates that by extending that transition time, it would go a long way to actually reducing these sorts of collisions as well by actually improving the safety of these intersections for both vehicles and pedestrians, alike.

I would think the most safe intersections [requiring the least amount of enforcement manned or automated] would be the ones where all directions are presented with an extended red light (no traffic is moving in any direction) for a discreet amount of time after any yellow-to-red phase transition.

This suggested solution seems very simple, indeed and doesn't require a huge investment in machines and computer systems to create which threaten our individual liberties by producing accusing witnesses who are not made of flesh-and-blood.

A good friend of mine, who is connected with our industry, suggested [in response to the Veil Guy's recent blog entry about being falsely accused by a machine] that the rule-of-law has been reversed with these related automated enforcement systems. In these instances where a machine is the accusing witness, you are presumed guilty of the infraction ["crime"] even if you weren't actually driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged infraction.

In these cases, the burden is on the accused to prove his/her innocence and not on the prosecution (a machine!) to prove his/her guilt.

This is the very clearly an unconstitutional process. Our friends across the pond my be able to get away with such legislative/enforcement practices, but in a country that was founded on the principles of freedom from tyranny, I can not see how this attempted subversion of our established judicial process can stand for any given period of time.

[Coming] from someone who likes to drive/move fast; we need to slow down, a little bit, step-back and re-assess what kind of society we want to create for ourselves--one controlled by machine or the good will of humanity.

I've learn a truism in my life: sometimes, moving slow is moving fast.

There has to be a better [and simpler] way...And our expression of this discontentment is the exercise of our right to vote the supporters of such systems OUT of office whether it be at the local, state, or federal level.

It happened in 1994 [with the US Congress] when our second amendment came under siege, it can certainly happen again, if and when the time comes.

Please forgive me, if I am getting a bit too philosophical on this one, but I think we're merely scratching the surface of the far-reaching implications and consequences of the mis-guided deployment of automated/machine-based systems to act as police men and woman--to enforce our laws--and the perversion or thwarting of our societies' time-proven-and-established justice systems to enable these [new-fangled] systems to thrive.

I believe we to need strike a better and more healthy balance.

STH