In general the data seems to suggest that yes, total crashes at the intersection will decrease (CMF = 0.8). CMF stands for Crash Modification Factor. Right-angle crashes will decrease (CMF = 0.67) and are generally more severe than rear-end crashes. Rear-end crashes may increase though (CMF = 1.45). Both groups generally tend to loudly argue their own point and both may be correct without listening to the whole safety argument. See http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/about.cfm and then search for "red light" and you'll see what I mean. All of this doesn't sort out the monetary costs and privacy aspects of the programs, but the safety data is reasonably easy to figure out so they can stop arguing over it.

Why don't you call up your local jurisdiction and tell them of your findings? The yellow interval has to be at least 3 seconds long.

From Merriam-Webster: Parody - a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. Seems like the example videos with the altered subtitles fits that description to me.

Actually, the equivalent single axle load (ESAL) is 0.000019425 for the Fit and 0.0007716 for the F-150 (assuming equal distribution on axles). So really that F-150 does over 39 times the damage the Fit does. To be fair though, that's nothing compared to semis for which the legal single axle load is 18,000lbs for an ESAL of 1.0. Either way though, it doesn't take away from the fact they are doing the same amount of damage by traveling the same number of miles they were previously, and paying less to do so which is the entire point of the VMT tax. ESALs explained. http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESAL

Since it doesn't look like anybody actually READ the report Oregon put out on milage taxes I'll provide a link to the report. The reports themselves are in the top right of the page. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/mileage.shtml They realize there is a privacy issue. Transportation Research Board (TRB) who conducts millions of dollars of research each year realizes there is a privacy issue. They are working on it. Please stop yelling "The sky is falling" so loudly and let's have a well informed, civil discussion about this. The gas tax hasn't been increased in ~20 years, so we'll have to pay for new roads somehow. If you hadn't received a raise in 20 years you'd be looking for new sources of income too. On top of that, vehicles are getting more miles to the gallon (a good thing), but are still damaging the road the same amount and paying less to do so (a bad thing). Either way, I think I'm late to this discussion, but they are worthwhile reports to read and should be attached to every discussion on this topic. I'd guess this paper should be read too, but I haven't read it myself. http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf

You're right in that we want strong and durable concrete. As another poster pointed out we are constantly changing the concrete mix proportions and admixtures. Admixes themselves are relatively new (~50 years) in the grand scheme of making concrete. It gets introduced slowly...and the universities then test it beyond belief for different properties. Maybe you'd like to be a grad student in civil engineering and make hundreds, or perhaps thousands of ever so slightly different mixes to determine the properties of your variable. I'm all for making concrete more "green" and I figure the universities and companies will test it before they use it in important projects.

I'm not sure that's the best analogy, although I'm sure mine is not much better. With yours generally somebody ELSE is accusing them of murder. GP's claim is one that is filed by the person, in their example rape. Perhaps a better version is "A person is accused of murder. They have previously been GUILTY of murder in the past, but in this case the person actually did NOT commit a murder this time." Is the jury likely to know this? I'm guessing it gets brought up in court. Just like I think prior accusations of rape should be. Note: I've seen how destructive accusations of rape can be to somebody, even if acquitted in the end. Yes, the accuser had a history of accusations.

Somewhere behind the "city" is hopefully a professional engineer (P.E.) who had to sign off on all of this. That's who's going to care if you find his/her timings are set incorrectly either on purpose or accidentally. And once it has been brought to their attention they had better be going to change it. So no, the politicians may or may not care about the signal timing, but their P.E. should. Maybe it's just me, but I'm of the opinion if you know something is wrong and have the means to fight it, do so. That would be one less signal timed incorrectly, but there are a lot of citizens, and only a few people in government. It all adds up. The government "works for us." Make them. I'm sure I don't know about other parts of government, but I'm hoping those who do will speak up and change it if it's wrong. When it becomes well known the lights aren't timed correctly they are all going to fight them, which means all of those cases are going to get tied up in the judicial system. Yes it takes our time, but it also takes the city's time to lose each of them. "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties" from the ASCE code of ethics. If the P.E. gets called out for intentionally shorting the yellow interval they are in a world of trouble in staying licensed. Your third paragraph is on a tangent, I'll leave it be. And don't worry about ranting as long as you have coherent thoughts to discuss.

In which case you go Here and then show up in court with the light's timings. Should be fairly easy to get it dismissed, and then figure out who shortened it to get them to change it.

Yes, that's a known problem. Which is why taxation per mile or by toll roads is an option. And as somebody above pointed out - the current gas tax can't pay for much anymore. It's drastically too low. On the flip side, it's political suicide to suggest raising the gas tax to a reasonable amount.

Assuming you were traveling at the posted speed limit and that the clearance interval timing was within the legal limits you shouldn't have to break as hard as you say you must. The downtown loop may have been re-timed within the last 3 years as well. The whole Kansas City area is in the midst of re-timing many of the traffic lights on arterial streets. See Operation Green Light for more information.