Are Red Light Cameras Really Designed To Protect Our Children?

[lib2DaBone]

If I am Texting at 60 MPH and I blow thru a red light... is a red light camera really a deterrent?

Can politicians innocently dispute the "Profit Motive"?

This reminds me of of radar traps back in the 70's ..."Kojack with a Kodak taking pictures and handing out green stamps.."

Research proved that over-crowded roads, poor maintenance and bad traffic signals were not being repaired with the proceeds from the radar traps. It was a zero net increase in safety, with an unproductive increase in the harassment factor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Activist not done jousting at traffic cameras

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/11/Kidd.ART_ART_02-11-10_B1_K0GID75.html?sid=101

[Captain Hilts]

1. On Connecticut Ave. between Bradley and ChChase Circle it does. It's important not to

speed through wealthy neighborhoods.

[Vincardog]

2. Are Red Light Cameras Really Designed To Protect Our Children? No they are for PROFIT

[villager]

7. +1

had a traffic court judge explain to me he wasn't "allowed" to reduce my fine -- though a car had stopped in front of me, in the intersection, stranding me there -- since the city's contract with the camer providers (a division of a "defense" contractor, btw...) didn't give him the latitude to do so...

[eppur_se_muova]

25. +1

[Echo In Light]

26. +1

[OhioChick]

29. Bingo. n/t

[slackmaster]

3. When I'm going through a camera-monitored intersection and the light turns yellow, I hit the gas

And cover my face so I can't be identified in the photo.

[dysfunctional press]

4. i've never heard anyone try to claim that the cameras are designed to protect children...

but rather to cut down on people running red lights.
and to make money for the municipality that installs them.

[Grand Taurean]

5. Red light cameras are intended to enhance revenue.

That is their only purpose.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Red lights are designed to protect children.

Red light cameras are designed to get people to stop blowing through red lights.

[sui generis]

10. not really.

a partial fractional sliver of the truth is not the whole truth. Red light cameras are designed to be a municipal cash cow, and that's a much bigger chunk of the truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. You could say the same for any law where the punishment is a fine.

If people stopped running red lights, the city wouldn't get money, and they wouldn't need the cameras any more.

[sui generis]

13. Yes but can they prove that there was a problem to begin with

in EVERY location they place a camera? They cost to operate. The company that operates them licenses, charges administrative for monitoring them, has maintenance fees, and their fractional margin. It's a shell game. If your city has five "dangerous" intersections and they put in five red light cameras ONLY then it's appropriate. If they have five dangerous intersections and the put in 300 red light cameras, it's a regressive tax.

Make no mistake it is a business FIRST.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. If there weren't people running red lights at those intersections...

Why would it be a cash cow?

[sui generis]

22. It's not a cash cow

or not for very long.

Red lights are not a major revenue source compared to all the other kinds of moving violations. But city administrators are easily convinced, so putting more red light cameras in locations where people won't fight the tickets and then gaming the light timing in the surrounding intersections gets people to screw up and not fight the tickets.

I can give you real world examples in Dallas where the camera placement is at the top of a hill and the red light is out of sight to anyone not driving a Ford escalade, so INEVITABLY somebody in a chain of cars will unwittingly find themselves entering the intersection as it turns red.

I see the thing flash every single day. The thing would be, raise the fucking light so people can see it.

Move it. Add a second light. Whatever. No, people are still running the light. It's still presumably a "safety issue" by torturous definition even though most people do NOT run red lights, but in some less than wonderbread neighborhoods in Dallas where the lights flash red to illuminate the two foot deep potholes, bloated dead pets and roaming toll-collecting pan handlers those people don't argue.

They just pay.

[Alexander]

8. It's been shown that red light cameras increase rear-end collisions at intersections.

When a driver is afraid of getting a ticket in the mail, he/she will be more likely to slam on the brakes at yellow lights.

[ddeclue]

20. No it hasn't - SLOW THE *UCK DOWN AND YOU WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

If you slow down, drive the speed limit and pay attention to what you are doing you will have PLENTY of time to gradually slow down at the light. Traffic lights give you PLENTY of "yellow time" so there is no need to "slam on the brakes" at the last minute unless you are a jackass who doesn't belong behind the wheel of a car because you never look outside while driving.

Indeed these days, the pedestrian crosswalk signals give you a very useful clue as to when the light will change because they count down in seconds to the end of the cycle and are clearly readable for at least 100 yards.

This "I'll get rear ended argument" is just another bogus excuse to try to avoid being stopped from running the lights. If someone is tailgaiting you, continue to slow down gradually until they get the message that you will not be pushed around by them - they will back off - I've used it and it never fails. If that doesn't work, DIAL 911 and REPORT THEM.

[Alexander]

33. Calm your ass down, camera lover, and try reading for a change.

Several studies have shown that yes, red light cameras do increase rear-end collisions, and you are simply full of shit.

1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995

This study examined the long term effect on accident-types of red-light cameras at 41 signalized intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.

Quotes from the study:

“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”

“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”

2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007

The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. Despite showing an increase in crashes, this study was instrumental in the return of red-light cameras to the state of Virginia. With a proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras was money.

Quotes from the study:

“After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”

“After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.”

“Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.”

3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2001

This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s staff. It looks at the problems of red-light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.

Quoted from the study:

"A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license.

In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue.”

4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004

A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University’s Urban Transit Institute for the United States Department of Transportation.

Quoted from the study:

“Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:

The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”

5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003

This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).

In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.

Quoted from the study:

“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:

* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.

The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.”

You can find and download all of these independent studies here: http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

I've never seen such staunch and aggressive defense of these cameras at DU. Are you a process server?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. This is true and always accompanied with a decrease in side impact collisions.

I'll leave you to guess which one causes more injuries and more serious injuries, statistically speaking of course.

[sui generis]

9. These are not mysterious questions

1. Most traffic cameras are in the poorest parts of your city
2. Traffic cameras DO increase public safety, but
3. Revenue from red light violations is FAR less than revenue from every other kind of ticket

So here's how it shakes out:

1. The company that installs the RLCs owns the RLC's -
installation is a one time cost
licensing is a multi-year cost
RLCs get a fraction of the revenue in most cases

2. Increasing public safety is relative. At a 12 way multi-lane intersection, it's a good idea. In the ghetto at a three way stop, it's just exploitation.

At the offramp service road into the ghetto where the light is green for 30 seconds and red for four minutes, it's exploitation. Nobody who blows through, turns right and gets a ticket (oh they'll send you a ticket, you still have to go to court, get it dismissed, and pay the dismissal fee) in the ghetto is going to fight the ticket.

Categorically, in places where red light runners WERE a real problem and dangerous, red light revenue has dropped to something like 12% of the original revenue, when installation, licensing and fractional are accounted for, leading to safer intersections, more tickets, and less money.

Your city red light cameras are like a special kind of ATM, that is if ATMs actually sucked money out of your wallet instead of dispensing it.

The question is IF the city really believes that public safety is paramount, then can they measure how much more safe it is now than before and can they justify the cost of this "additional" safety as the only possible method for increasing public safety?

They can't. Your intuition is correct - they are absolutely lying and numbers prove it. Ask to see those numbers under your city's open records act.

[Warpy]

16. You're certainly right about camera placement

Here in the city, the cost has been high enough that they're not wasting them in my 'hood, they're putting them on the busiest intersections where the meanest accidents have happened. There are only about a dozen of them out there, but I've noticed fewer people blowing through red lights all over town.

Just hope the guy in back of you has good brakes.

[JCMach1]

11. Going to go with the police here... the cameras stop people from jumping...

The UAE has some of the most horrible drivers... insane speeds, aggressive driving.... It makes LA, or NYC seem like PeeWee league driving. Anyway, here where they have had redlight cameras in place for years (i.e. people are conditioned) people don't jump/run redlights. The are insane about everything else, but they stick on red.

This is so a change from the U.S. that the only place I have to actually be more cautious when I drive in the U.S. now is stopping and going through redlights. The asshats in the States will kill you.

Yeah, cameras are BS... But, they do actually work for redlights. They don't for speeding though. Give me about 36 Highway patrolman with coughs and tasers and I could send end speeding in Dubai.

But yes, cameras work for redlights. Give them time.

[Warpy]

14. When you get that ticket for over two hundred bucks

you won't do it a second time, and that's really the point. You might be able to sweet talk a cop but there's no way you're going to fool a robot camera.

I know people aren't running red lights here like they used to and the cameras are only on a few of the worst intersections.

The only time they've fired at me was when I was too far through the intersection for them to get the tag, which is how they're designed to work.

The main bug when they were first installed was that they were getting people in the left turn lane who were within the intersection, waiting to turn on yellow. They've refocused them and they're working fine now.

My initial annoyance has turned to relief, I'm no longer as worried about getting t-boned if I'm the first one out on green.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

17. THANK YOU. nt

[sui generis]

19. Red Light Camera Secret

As long as your two front tires are both clearly over the pedestrian line when the light changes, your ticket is not valid even if you end up sitting in the intersection waiting on it to clear . . . a red light camera cannot give you a ticket for failing to clear the intersection or give you a moving violation for "entering" the intersection while the light was red.

The flip side is an unsophisticated camera WILL send you a ticket for turning red on right in some cases, although they are supposed to "prove" that you did not turn right before mailing you the notice in most cities these days, and they do that by showing three consecutive frames of your car in the intersection.

The first frame checks your front wheels - the second one checks your vector and the third one is a time-in-intersection/velocity check.

[ddeclue]

21. It will give you a ticket for entering the intersection AFTER a red which is the design purpose.

[sui generis]

24. Correct, but if you're worried about people running up your

muffler pipe, then presumably they can see that if you barely made it on yellow, they shouldn't be accelerating.

The point being those same people who take chances are still going to be driving unsafely and the rest who don't or wouldn't run a red light still won't and don't.

It's a whole bunch of money invested in a relatively insignifant and dishonestly portrayed non-issue, in most cases where there is a red light camera.

[ddeclue]

28. That's simply false and a defeatist excuse..

By that standard why bother with police at all because people are still going to break the laws.. Why bother with doctors? People are still going to die.

:eyes:

Those red light runners will learn an expensive lesson when they get a $200 ticket and points on their insurance. Those that don't will eventually lose their license.

We don't have to live with selfish bastards that INSIST on running the red lights.. some of them around these parts do it for a good TEN seconds or more AFTER the light has turned red.

[sui generis]

37. oh spare me

please. (reworded for civility)

Nothing I said is untrue - just observations, and certainly none of it warranted a personal judgement from you.

Seriously, my point all through the thread is that red light runners are not the same everywhere and that in the places where people can least afford to pay for the city "gaming" the red lights, it borders on monstrous that they prey in the poorer communities where incidentally fewer people in my experience actually do run red lights.

Now when I go to plano or richardson or some other white bread community I can't tell you how many entitled hard haired escalade driving drop chinned no neck loose nostril nuclear lipped red neck soccer moms run red lights.

Yeah - I'd also like to add a laser cannon and vaporize those people randomly and have a game show and betting pool, but they are the exception.

[truebrit71]

23. Red light cameras are solely for income generation. They actually INCREASE accidents...

..and therefore do bugger-all for safety..

[ddeclue]

27. NO THEY DON'T. That's simply NOT TRUE.

[Echo In Light]

30. Why are you SHOUTING so much in this thread? You a cop?

[Alexander]

35. Probably a process server who will ignore all the studies I posted.

Money has a funny way of changing people's minds.

[kiva]

34. Google "do cameras at stoplights prevent accidents"

The first page of links (maybe more, I didn't look) are all to article that cite studies saying that these camera's don't reduce accidents, that in fact they do the opposite.

"Once again, we're left wondering why people still claim the cameras increase safety, when there appears to be no evidence to support that at all. There is a clear and proven way to increase safety though: (1) increase the length of the yellow and (2) increase the delay (or, for places like California which have no delay, put in a delay) when lights in all direction are red, before switching the new direction to green. Any municipality that puts in redlight cameras without doing those two things above, and then claims its about "safety" is lying."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091218/1100537428.shtml

"Researchers at the University of South Florida Public Health have released a study that shows a significant spike in accidents at intersections that use cameras to catch light runners."
Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/03/new-study-says/#ixzz0fG6yZCws

"The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.

But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

And many more.

[Echo In Light]

36. Thanks for posting

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. There is usually a decrease in side impact collisions and an increase in rear impact collisions.

[Toasterlad]

31. NOTHING Is Designed to "Protect Our Children"

"Protect our children" is no more or less a marketing term than "new and improved" or "as seen on TV".

[Echo In Light]

32. "Family Value$, Inc"

[wellstone dem]

38. Someone sued about this in Minnesota

and I got $75 back. I was leaving a Twins game and if I had stopped would have been rear ended. I had paid the ticket, thinking it was worth it to have avoided the accident. But then someone sued, and it was a class action so I got some of my money back. I think the issue was that they couldn't tell who was driving, and it is a moving violation not a vehicle violation so ticketing the owner was not fair. And that some people couldn't remember who was driving when the ticket came weeks later.

[Odin2005]

39. No. Traffic cops are a bunch of extortionists.