No, it isn’t hard to tell. Look at accident rates before and after. Also, compare to similar intersections in the same or similar cities without red light cameras.
If the camera is the only thing that was changed (it often isn’t…cities love shortening yellow lights) it is dead simple to know if they are causing more accidents.
And the reason for them, in some cases, being illegal isn’t privacy, it’s mainly due process.
While we’re at it, how about some more 85th percentile speed limits.
Excellent link. Issues like these and the one in Ken’s post are the things that concern me about these cameras. Once installed, they can be used for a myriad of purposes…including, apparently, revenue enhancement.
Are you kidding? Ah,but the burden of proof is on you(they hope you will pay the fine,without contest.)I’m really fed up with stupid regs-Kevin
Have you noticed all the cameras croping up everywhere?This reminds me of when they tell you your record is expunged after so many years(right)-Kevin
You’re trading side impacts for front/rear.
The benefit of this will be diminished as cars not designed for side impacts start being retired.
Yes!!!
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…
In my state such a cover would in itself be a violation. In addition according to two test of such products, they did not work. I have not seen a test indicating that they do work.You also need a large number of samples when the difference a change makes is small. If RLCs cut the accident rate in half, that could be reliably supported with only a few dozen samples. But if the RLCs only cut the accident rate by a percentage point or two, it would take thousands of samples to reliably support that.
I purposely avoid writing “proof” or “prove” because nothing is ever proved by statistics. In science, “proof” is like “checkmate”, it can be no other way.