-
Website
http://www.motorists.org/blog -
Original page
http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm considerable safe motorist, I try harder don't break the rules. But I was caught 2 times in a transit camera.
I know people that do everything in the transit, I has never been caught in a camera.
some pros and cons to pop into my head:
pros: higher revenue for other community projects, more $$ to re-engineer dangerous intersections, $$ to provide alternatives to driving
cons: higher accident rates in that community, higher insurance rates for those who live there,
and then, they publish the pros and cons of RLC's to the community and let them vote on it. it the people who live where the RLC is going to be put in think it is worth the risk they will vote for it but if the people don't want it then they should not be installed.
I'd like to point out that cameras don't (CAN'T) cause accidents any more than guns kill people. Drivers intentionally and willfully ignoring the traffic lights or those around them cause accidents.
If it really is a timing issue, isn't running the light just exacerbating the timing issue for the traffic going the other way? I've sat at a green light before while I watched up to 5 cars "sneak" by in front of me - a camera would have given them all nice fat tickets.
I remember when I was a kid this didn't happen (I'm in my mid 30s). As my generation - full of wealth and self-entitlement - grew older, this type of occurrence became more and more frequent. There's an undercurrent of entitlement and "I can get away with this" that is genuinely pervasive and irritating.
Everyone - slow down. Consider other people for just a moment (not just yourself and the hurry you're in) and we'll all be safer and happier (not to mention more courteous).
Let's not make more excuses for what is simply rude, anti-societal behavior. Obey the rules of the road and stop whining if you get caught breaking them.
{What actions do you suggest? If safety is important i would guess reducing accidents is important. Does that mean actions you suggest such actions as removing red light cameras and spending money to re-engineer dangerous intersections? If so what money should be used to re-engineer dangerous intersections? Gas tax funding?}
Fair question. Any public policy action must be funded with public tax money. That includes funding enforcement staffing as well as the engineering to mitigate designed-in dangers. Re-engineered does not always mean reconfigured, i.e., moving the roadways around. It could and likely does include resetting the yellow light timing as well as a brief all-red interval, usually less than 1 second. Whether we use gas tax funds or property taxes or sales taxes is not important; that we remove obstacles to better driving that are simultaneously used to generate revenue (albeit ill-gotten) is important.
{Any suggestions on reducing the more than 40,000 people killed every year in the USA in traffic accidents?}
NHTSA needs to develop a much more realistic scenario as to what actually causes crashes or at least how much each factor (currently xxxxxx-involved in their parlance) actually contributes to crashes. They also need to accept the fact that suicide is far more common in vehicular crashes than the zero involvement they currently recognize. We then need to develop policies that actually address the issue rather than the institutionally-driven greed that so permeates the traffic safety establishment. I know that I’m really weird about having public policies actually do what they are supposed to do.
We also need to reexamine the proper role of enforcement in traffic safety. What they have been doing is driven far more by institutional power and greed than by any improvement in key traffic safety measures. This must end and if LE is forced to reallocate their resources elsewhere or to less profitable measures, then so be it. If engineers play a much more important role, especially vis-à-vis politicians, then so be that as well.
Of course it is for revenue and screw the safety.
To begin with, there was never any statistical evidence to support the claim that red light running was on the rise. As anyone in Traffic Operations will know, when analyzing collision data or traffic data you need to review several years worth of data in order to determine trends. Once you have data you can then start to make comparison's on a year-to-year basis. When RLC were first proposed in Toronto, they went out and did counts at some signlized intersections and low and behold they found drivers running the red lights. This should not come as any surprise. Over the past 30 years I have performed many 8 hour intersection turning movement counts and it is not unusual to see drivers sail right through a red display and not even realize it until they are up the street about 200 feet (that's when they hit the brakes, look in the rearview mirror and say" Did I just drive through the red?). Drivers have always run red lights. What has never been proven is the frequency of red light running geting worse. Part of the problem is traffic studies do not exist from 20 years ago to show how many drivers ran the red.
So a bunch of traffic engineers (who have probably never counted traffic at an intersection) concluded from one study that a problem existed. Combine that with a technology that works, companies wanting to sell the product and traffic engineers wanting to keep up with the Jones (other engineers) it was relatively easy to sell the politicians and public that a RLC program would reduce safety and not cost anything because the ticket revenue generated would pay to run the program.
In Toronto, the reality was that ticket revenue fell short of operating costs and I believe in the end it has been seen as more of a revenue generating device - that is why the Provincial government supported the expansion. Since the Province did not want to give the cities more money they said "Ok, we will let you install RLC so you can make your own money".
I could go on forever but here are a few interesting points.
Toronto originally installed 40 RLC sites and rotated 10 cameras around through each site. Just so happened that we 40 poliical Wards and each Ward got a camera - funny how each Ward happen to have a"problem" location.
40 sites, 10 cameras - that means in one year a camera should be at one site for 3 months in total. I have experienced two instances where a site did not have a camera in operation for over a year because the site generated few tickets and the cameras were left at other sites where they generated more tickets.
Urban myth - a RLC installation covers all approach lanes to the intersecion - NO!. In Toronto a RLC only covers two lanes on one approach to the intersection. We have several locations were 3 lanes approach but only 2 lanes are covered by the RLC. How was it determined that red light running was not a problem in the 3rd lane or any of the other approach lanes to the intersection?
When the fist RLC were being installed, at one location, due to excessive underground utilites, the RLC could not be installed on the selected approach. Solution - "just put it on another approach - as long as the intersection has a RLC who cares".
All the above quickly lead me to believe that RLC's are not a safety device, they are cash cows.
I drove taxi @ nite on/off for forty years. What would I know? I know this it's all a set up from the big cars that burn more gas to long lights, that burn more gas. Traffic jams waste energy but make profit.
Thens theres predatory insurance companies and their proxy's the courts and cops, all feeding at the trough of moving from point A to point B.
SOLUTION; Cut 30 secs. to a minute off every traffic signal in America. Oil crisis evaporates. Keep moving. Stopping and starting is bad. Use traffic ciruclations like in N.J. After rush hour lights are changed to blinking, stop if you need to. Impliment rules that say if it's safe because no other car is close enough to collide with rolling stops are o.k.
But were like the monkey with his hand in the jar. Trapped by our own greed. HA ha ha ha ah......ha ha ha....!!!!
These RLCs exist for one reason and one only: they make the cities money. I find it inexcusable that those placed in a position of public trust are willing to install a system that blatantly increases the already-significant dangers of accidents at intersections just to generate revenue. Talk about barbaric!
I believe these reports are biased.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_...
I recently read that the new speed cameras in Australia were wrongfully ticketing city buses and cars. After thousands of victims, Victoria Police decided to remove all red light and speed cameras.
Until the municipalities see the flaws in these systems, we need to do something to protect ourselves. I’ve purchased a spray that blocks the cameras flash and it’s given me a sense of relief.
http://www.phantomplate.com/affiliatewiz/aw.asp...
I can personally attest to the greater risk of side impact, side impact while turning, and head on collisions versus rear end collisions 'reportedly' increased from having cameras installed. I have personally witnessed far more people in my life trying to sneak by the light, as opposed to attempting to stop appropriately. And if you are trying to justify disregarding traffic regulations so you 'might' avoid getting rear ended, why aren't you watching your rear view, and your distance, and your speed more closely. These are cheap excuses.
So it is reported today that Redflex, an operator of traffic camera and enforcement products has been using an illegal radar device to catch speeders. This device which is not approved to operate and is not licensed has most likely caught 10's of thousands of people speeding - every one of these tickets - would not presumably be under question and those which were paid - should be entitle to be refunded.
How could a company and the contracting authorities make such a serious oversight. Your city may have given a contract to a company to use illegal equipment to catch you doing illegal things (speeding)
If you were issued a ticket by Redflex ..... send it back for a refund
If an intersection has a lot of collisions caused by drivers running red lights, just lengthen the all-red phase. Costs nothing, solves the problem. Red light cameras do nothing to solve the problem, they just generate revenue."
Nope. Not true.
If it was all about revenue then they would lower speed limits 5 or 10 mph.
Shorten the yellow to 2 seconds.
As for all red phasing.
Nope doesn't work.
In Suffolk County NY their was an intersection that made the top 10 for accidents.
The brain dead created the problem.
2 lanes east. 2 lanes west.
Separate light controlled left turn lanes.
The north south lanes ran separately.
No traffic ever crossed each other on the green and ALL lanes had a red light at the same time until traffic cleared.
The brain dead red light runner's still caused horrific accident's anyway.
Their is going to be one way to curtail these red light runner's.
Camera's and steep fines.
I have seen red light runner's drive through red lights as much as 20 seconds after the light has turned red.
I've had them drive around me while stopping for a red light that was red even before I reached the painted white line and they were BEHIND ME!
You don't like the camera's?
Don't blame the government.
Blame all the red light runner's out there.
Excuse's about short yellow's. LOL
Blameing the timing of light's. LOL
Big brother watching? LOL
Brain dead stupid driver's. Yep.
I was going to write a post called “Niel Hopper is a Moron” but I figured “why bother.” The failure to use any sort of reasoning speaks for itself."
What failure?
The fact that lengthening the yellow light will not cut down on red light running?
I know that intersection very well.
It's true what was written.
Even with "ALL" lanes getting a red signal the red light runner's still crashed into innocent driver's.
STOP getting upset over the camera's.
Start getting upset becasue of the red light runner's have brought camera's onto all of us.
Not the people who stop for red light's.
But the one's who don't!
The phase when all lights are red (which has NOTHING to do with the length of the yellow) allows cars that have legally entered the intersection just before the light turns red to clear the intersection before the light for the cross street turns green. If the all-red phase lasts a second or two longer, it allows the jerks who blast through after the light has turned red to clear the intersection as well. There's no reason you couldn't also put up cameras to catch the violators and punish them appropriately, but that in itself will have no immediate impact on safety.
The deadliest accidents are caused by someone blowing through the red light in the middle of the cycle because they didn't see it, and there's nothing signal timing or red-light cameras can do to prevent those.
I see you aren't aware that those license plate sprays DO NOT work.
Not only has Myth Busters proved they don't but so has a few Car magazine's.
The plastic plate cover's are also worthless.
Same thing with radar absorbing paint.
OUCH very expensive!
Special radar absorbing car bra's only helped a little and expensive.
Make sure you have enough funds available relying on your spray. :-)
The black plastic plate covers are not worthless.
A black plastic plate cover is illegal.
The license plate must be visible and not blocked by a black plate cover.
That would make reading your plate an impossibility.
Maybe your referring to a black border around the license plate?
BUT it must be able to be read by human eye's.
If human eye's can read it so can the camera's.
In all the years I have reading about these tricks to avoid either red light or speed camera's or radar-lidar detection.
When tested by independent source's, not the manufacture's tests, not one have ever proven to effectively work.
I have been reading about these device's for 30+ years looking for something that truly works beside making somebody some money for nothing.
Not even when the painted a car with the same radar absorbing material used on stealth aircraft.
While some products do get you a little closer to the detection device before being detected nothing got you close enough to avoid getting caught.