Red Light Camera Study

Seems you have a bit of a contradiction there. You say they ignore the studies and hide behind the "safety" card, yet when I read the article you linked to, the article supports the claim that injuries and deaths at intersections have gone DOWN since the cameras were installed.

So which study is it you claim they ignored?

PT

Well I read it as accidents have gone up, although serious injury accidents have gone down. So there may indeed be more injuries ( the article doesn't state if minor injuries have increased or not ), just according to whatever measurement they used, there not serious injuries or deaths. My point for stating that politicians are hiding behind the safety card is that regardless of the amount of injuries that exist, because less deaths have occurred, politicians automatically state that safety has improved.

The fellow in the article doesn't even seem interested in reading the study which is ultimately my point: Politicians keep spurting out the words "improved safety" and most probably don't bother looking through the stats and studies to ensure that overall injuries are actually down.... just that less people are dying which is little consolation to the person who just got whiplash.

It's all about getting gobbs of money.

--Out of our pockets and into theirs.

Plain and simple!!!

Red light cameras are a money grab, a very high tax for certain intersections. I've posted her about the formulas for calculating proper yellow light times. Cities, like mine, do not give a proper yellow light at many intersections. Putting up a camera allows them to collect fees for an improperly set yellow light length.

San Diego even got caught doing it a few years back. Stuides have been done showing red light running drops to small numbers, once the yellow is lengthened.

I don't speed and don't run lights and hate people who do - but giving people a short yellow is the safety problem and putting a camera there just penalizes people for something they cannot physically prevent, in some cases.

I believe the red light things ARE a money grab. Fortunately, where I am, (south Jersey) they haven't had the number of cameras that other places have. However, we do have TOLL ROADS, and a governor that wants to increase out tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike some 800 per cent!

What really irritates me about this whole redlight camera thing is that all a driver gets is a ticket... nothing more. So repeat offenders who have the money really have nothing to lose except a few bucks. The problem is for the sap in front of them that can't afford the ticket and actually decides to stop meanwhile he gets ploughed from behind. If the cameras were actually for safety then the repeat offenders would get there licence's pulled because they are the safety hazard. The problem with this is that if it were to happen, politicians would be alienating their best customers and reducing their tax revenue.

But, with my handy, dandy GPS, with the POI Factory red light camera list, I have a real time heads up warning of the red light camera. This allows me to focus on the reality that the light may have a short yellow, I can guage just how stale the green is, assess traffic behind me and take defensive actions ****even though the light is fully green****. Why would I not do this at every light? Why should I have to slow down, in heavy traffic from 45 mph speed light to 30 mph as I approach a ***green*** light? The yellow ***should*** be calculated for 45 mph to keep traffic moving and one should not have a problem, but, you cannot count on the city to have it right. Penalty at a camera light for 0.2 second problem is $75.

Situational awareness thanks to the GPS.

My daughter got a camera ticket--(Calif) for not stopping for a right turn-- It took four pictures-- all good pictures of her and the car -- clocked her at 17MPH and it cost her $425! I don't think she will do it again! I don't know if this a "Points" ticket in California!

Don't speed, don't run Red Lights and you won't have a problem. Yellow means the light is changing and you should stop. There is no minimum for how long a light stays yellow, so STOP. If you get a ticket because the light turns red, that's the breaks. I have no sympathy.

J-u-s-t o-b-e-y t-h-e L-A-W!

Regardless of the actual speed limit of the road???

PT

If I hit the brakes on every yellow light in Phoenix (and Scottsdale), I would need a good stock of rear bumpers for my car due to rear end collisions. There IS a minimum time for the yellow light, each city and intersection is different. I saw the city of Mesa's page, where they show the timeing of their lights, and they actually extended the timing of the yellow light even thou they lost alot of revenue from the Red Light Camera intersections. Other Cities shorten that time to make more revenue. Its all about the money.

It's all about the money for local goverment.

Here is a new outlook on the cameras. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/

The Courts through out the red light cams here for tempering with the yellow light fines were $271.00. The city took them out. Then they put even more of them in told the court where to go and raised the fine to $479.00 per light. People jam on there breaks at a yellow light and get hit from the back there are even more serious and non serious injury accidents So there may indeed be more injuries. It is just a money grab for them.
Jolleyr c330

that is a 1 point and a moving violation point in CA. That means traffic school and court cost to keep it off your record. One time only in 18 mouths.
jolleyr c330

Quote from the Dallas Morning News
"Initial gross revenue estimates for the red light camera system during Dallas' 2007-08 fiscal year were $14.8 million, according to city records. The latest estimate? About $6.2 million. City Manager Mary Suhm on Friday estimated net revenue will fall $4.1 million under initial estimates."

They will turn off about 15 of the 62 red light cameras in Dallas.

Most of our inept politicians cannot curb their spending and risk the loss of power if they increase taxes. the solution extortion in the name of safety.

--We have a BINGO--

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a bunch of whiners! There is a saying: "Everything is legal until you get caught; and when you get get caught; don't whine!"

turn off these red light cameras in Dallas, do you think their going to also put up a sign "This Camera Turned Off", or "Non-Functional Camera"? I don't think so. Drivers better treat them as if there on. They may even rotate the ones that are On/Off.

http://www.redspeed-illinois.com/

Here in Calgary; Alberta; Canada; we have had red light camera's for a number of years ( somewhere around ten years ). There are a total of 44 camera's in the city. At this stage of the game if one should be unfortunate enough to get a red light ticket; than I suppose one could say that they are stupid; because after ten years one would think that they should know what the consequences are!

Studies in my state (Georgia) and elsewhere by the NTSB indicate that the worst type of intersection accident, the t-bone collision, does NOT occur within a second or two after the light changes red, but rather occurs most often mid cycle when an impaired or distracted driver blows through a red light 10 or 15 seconds after it turned red. The red light camera has no effect on this type of accident. But, as the article on msnbc.com points out, many studies have shown a significant increase in rear end collisions at red light camera enforced intersections. The cameras are there for revenue. They actually increase accidents and therefore have a negative, not positive effect on safety.

Ron.gps

Safety study on Red Light Cameras
Studies in my state (Georgia) and elsewhere by the NTSB indicate that the worst type of intersection accident, the t-bone collision, does NOT occur within a second or two after the light changes red, but rather occurs most often mid cycle when an impaired or distracted driver blows through a red light 10 or 15 seconds after it turned red. The red light camera has no effect on this type of accident. But, as the article on msnbc.com points out, many studies have shown a significant increase in rear end collisions at red light camera enforced intersections. The cameras are there for revenue. They actually increase accidents and therefore have a negative, not positive effect on safety.

--
Ron

Ron, do you have a link to the studies above? (both the State of GA Study and others, plus the MSNBC study) I'd love to show them to a friend who thinks red light cameras are just the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Here you go:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/

www.ntsb.gov

Just one quote from that article!

"But advocates point out that right-angle crashes are far more dangerous, causing 64 percent of the injuries at those intersections.

“We would prefer to have minor rear-end collisions, rather than broadside collisions, which lead to serious and fatal injuries,” said Art Acevedo, chief of the Austin, Texas, police."

You decide! Stop for the red light and take the risk of being rear ended; or; run the light and take the risk of being involved in a fatality accident!

In Toledo, OH they are seeing the revenue stream that these Red Light/Speed cameras provide, and the Ohio Supreme Court refused to do anything about them. The Administration in Toledo decided to increase the fees from $95 to $120. The City expects the revenue to increase to 2.5 million.

The heading says it all! Only the stupid pay!

and they say it's all about safety, bureaucratic Statements like that make me mess my pants, and the sad part is I just showered.

Some say don't speed or don't run red lights, well I don't, but dodo occurs. and when it does I want the safety to work on my behalf while these shady political scam artists try to collect my money. The cameras create so much money that the cities can cover blown budgets due to unsavory and inexperienced local leaders, all in the name of safety. Plain and simple.

So Please don't tell me not to speed or run red lights, because I don't in the first place.

Bob

I guess the cameras weren't saving enough lives at $95. Pure coincidence that they mentioned revenue increasing.

Give your head a shake. Only the stupid pay!

"Don't run the red lights..."

If this were only the case. Those who have this point of view have not made time to find out what the cameras are really about. Unfortunately, the only thing that will change their mind is when they become a victim of the game.

The cities do not go in and draw a line from corner to corner of an intersection and use this as the line of demarcation, when there is a clearly marked stop line at that intersection, for safety reasons. This line, sometimes an imaginary line, is used so MORE people become "violators" of the red light and therefore more money for them.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1805.asp

They really love the people who have this outlook on the cameras. "Don't run the lights and you won't have to worry about them!" If only that were true.

Oh..by the way. On the 27th of this month at the intersection of Plano Parkway and Preston Road, the camera was going off WITHOUT ANYONE IN THE INTERSECTION. Then it continued to go off with cars at a complete stop at the intersection. I'd bet $100 that several of those people who were stopped get a ticket mailed out to them! I feel for those that are going to have to go thru the hassle of proving their innocence.

Fortunately I had my camera, not camcorder, but I took some video of it anyways. Not the best, but it clearly shows it going crazy. I watched it for about 6 cycles.

Happy motorin'!!

The "imaginary" line actually benefits a driver who does not come to a stop at the marked line (like they are supposed to do) and stops past the marked line. If you continue through then you ran the light.

Even the article you linked to tried to slant the facts by claiming that you can proceed into the intersection on a yellow, but then goes on to quote the laws where it does NOT state this anywhere. Yellow means "movement authorized by a green signal is being terminated", not to proceed into the intersection.

So if you have a yellow or a red, stop at the frickin painted line or before the crosswalk if there is not a stop line. PERIOD. If you do that, then you will never cross the imaginary line that is further out and you won't have an issue.

Now if the problem was that entering the intersection on a green and having it change to yellow then red so fast that you don't have time to get through the intersection, you would have a valid point.

PT

The statute here in Georgia, O.C.G.A. 40-6-21, only prohibits ENTERING an intersection on a Red light. Entering on a Green light or a Yellow light is legal. In fact, the way the statute is written, it would not be a violation to BE in an intersection when the light turns Red, but would only be a violation to ENTER an intersection on Red. I believe most states' statutes are similar.

In Ohio in left turn lanes, I have stopped my previous practice (for 40 years) of entering an intersection on green, hoping either the opposing traffic clears so I can turn, or when the light changes, I can turn when opposing traffic stops.

The anxiety of hoping the opposing traffic stops was just too much. Even though I can "enter" the intersection on green, I felt like I was hanging out there in the intersection, waiting for a collision.

If someone behind me is upset that I'm not agressive enough in my driving, I don't mind!

I now stop behind the stop line and then watch opposing traffic for a safe opportunity to turn.

As I recall from my Driver's Ed (in the 1960's) a yellow light meant "clear the intersection."

I always thought if I saw a yellow, I should stop if I can. If stopping would put me in the middle of the intersection when the light changes to red, I'm not clearing it, I'm blocking it, so I would continue.

It does seem that there are many experts on red light violations on this forum! Great reading.