I’ve lived in 2 areas that installed red light cameras in the past 3 years.
According to a CBS investigative report they can CAUSE more accidents then they prevent.
Economic / ticket quota issues aside, I’d like to hear from anyone who lives near a red light camera about whether the intersection seems safer or more dangerous since the camera went up.
CBS link is at http://www…ayport.com
Probaly by panic stops when the camera is noticed-I dont like smart lights or RLCs-but do love right on red and overpasses-Kevin
It would be hard to tell if they are causing more accidents. Certainly I would guess they are connected to some, but only situations where the driver has already failed. The real advantage would come when drivers could not know if there was a active camera at any intersection. If there was sufficient chance that a ticket would result every time the law was violated, then you would have reduced accidents.
As they are, I doubt if they are really making much of a change in safety.
Off topic: I don’t buy the argument that they are illegal because the driver should have any expectation of privacy on a public road when he is breaking a law.
Coming to a safety conclusion based on the number of accidents at any given intersection during the course of one year is statistically as meaningless as tossing a coin five times, noting the result, and then saying, “there, that proves the odds aren’t 50/50.”
You would have to track the trends of thousands of intersections before and after the cameras to come to a valid conclusion and even then, you have to make sure other variables did not change, speed limits, traffic density, etc.
There’s a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning out there.
My thought is the number of rear end accident would possibly increase as people slam on there brakes when the light turns yellow. However the number of accidents In THE BOX caused by running the light could be reduced. Reducing the, In The Box accident may reduce injuries caused by side impacts on drivers and passenger doors.
I have noticed in West Palm Beach, Florida, since the cameras went up, people are driving slower and more carefully.
Even if red light cameras cause more accidents than they prevent, I contend that the magnitude of those accidents is far less.
Sometimes enforcing the law has unintended consequences, yet we enforce the law anyway. I like the cameras. I think they save lives.
The data that I saw on a TV show (can’t remember which) said exactly that, Whitey. The frquency of accidents increased but the severity dropped.
Personally, I don’t support the stop light caneras for general use. I’m not comfortable with Big Brother watching my every move. Once filmed the record could be used in unintended ways, just as automotive “black box” data has made its way into civil courts.
Due to the “distracted driving” factor.
Add one more item to the list of things people are looking at, that they shouldn’t be, while attempting to operate a motor vehicle.
With the existance of some cameras at some intersections you now have people staring out the windows at every intersection and not paying vigilance to the traffic at hand.
Yea, it might be useful to prove you did not do something across town that was illegal. Since is would be legal to have a cop on the corner writing down plate numbers, a camera would be no different, except cheaper and more accurate.
That assumes they’d let you see the camera’s records for less than the price of the ticket. Either way, you’re stuck with court costs.
And what about people who get stuck “inside the box” because they (correctly) yielded to an emergency vehicle?
The red light camera is either in front of or behind you, as it needs to photograph your license plate. Why are you looking out your windows?
The purpose of a red light camera is to generate revenue, not to prevent accidents.
Exactly right, X. Good posting. Some time ago, I learned they had installed RLC in McAllen, and frankly I do not have hundreds of dollars to be paying greedy losers in charge of city governments. So, I was concerned what it all meant, and did a lot of research.
I thought it meant if I entered the intersection on yellow and did not clear the intersection before the red light, I could get fined a large amount. And, that made me rather nervous, because once in a while that happens. So, I spent hours reading everything on line I could find.
As most of you probably knew already, I found it means to enter the intersection after the light turns red, which I virtually never do.
But, I read on. Yes, X, it is for revenue. Studies have shown that RLC with high violation rates, drop to virtually nothing if the yellow time is increased by 500 milliseconds, half a second. Yet, greedy gov’t officials show their true colors by refusing to extend the yellow light, even though they claim it is to reduce accidents. THEY WANT ALL THAT BEAUTIFUL MONEY.
Most red light runners, despite the righteous attitudes of many citizens, are not deliberate violations, though certainly some do exist. They are driving errors. They are caused by inexperience, in some cases age reduced depth perception; distractions, or confusion caused by entering an unfamiliar intersection with confusing visual images, such as bushes or parked cars near the intersection or things like that.
As a car gets closer to the intersection when the yellow light changes, there is a narrow slot where it is not clear whether to continue on, or to stop. Most drivers can tell it is appropriate to stop from a block away, heh, heh. But, within a few dozen yards, the number who make the wrong decision go up. The half second extra yellow time eliminates most of those who make the wrong decision, which pretty well summarizes the real purpose or RLC.
Some claim, well, that half second is too much, and will dramatically slow the flow of traffic. Let us examine that claim. If red light accidents are such a grave issue that we must mulct the citizens out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, then it is such a grave issue we need to extend the yellow light time by 500 ms.
Someone above commented on the studies which would need to be done to prove RLC increase wrecks. Actually, while he made some good points, essentially summarizing the science needed, the word, “thousands” was incorrect. No scientist believes the minimum number of sites to be studied need be in the thousands. Sampling techniques produce reliable results with a modest number of sites sampled. About the only time such large numbers are required are the quarter billion dollar safety studies required by the Feds for a new medicine, because serious side effects can be very rare, but still relevant to the safety of medicines for the large scale use the med company hopes for.
I have seen red light runners almost daily where I live and elsewhere, especially the Orlando, FL area. There will be a learning curve as is commonly said. When drivers anticipate that the car ahead may stop for a red light, accidents due to potential red light runners stopping after all as they should will diminish. I have seen a similar situation in the past when big city freeway low speed rush hour bumper to bumper freeway traffic when freewways were newer where I live produced almost a daily rear ender type collision until all learned that you must not follow too closely and must pay attention.
The CBS report may very well be correct but lacks perspective regarding the learning curve and that is often how the news people make a story
Fortunately, motorists have a choice of license plate covers and protectors to defeat photo-radar and photo red light and photo everything cameras…The “privacy” computer screen covers 3M sells really work good but are pricey…
“When drivers anticipate that the car ahead may stop for a red light, accidents due to red light runners stopping as they must will diminish.”
You do realize you are quite mad, do you not? Who doesn’t anticipate that a car ahead of them will stop for a red light? The first person to run a red light may have made an error in judgement, had a lapse in attention, or be a truly bad person, but the second person to run that red light deserves whatever he gets.
I got a wonderful love letter from the city of Albuquerque with a beautiful, frameable picture of the rear end of my 06 hybrid Escape with a second close up of my bright yellow/red license plate.
Clearly visable in the picture is a bright GREEN traffic signal.
It was a SPEEDING ticket from the ‘red light’ camera.
Watch out youall.
Quote: “Who doesn’t anticipate that a car ahead of them will stop for a red light?”
Don’t get me started.
You risk a cop giving you a ticket for an obstructed license plate but this, like burned out license plate lights may be left in reserve for a cop as an excuse to stop you whenever they please.
Got a small snootfull while driving home from a restaurant with good food and wine? Better have your car perfect in every way.
They don’t mention whether the yellow lights were shortened after the cameras were installed.
Some cities do that. Red light cameras are not for safety.
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/