Tennessee: Red Light Camera Causes Overturned Dump Truck Crash

As has been discussed before, some of us have experienced the same type of incident, but fortunately no collision took place. I bet that the total cost to society of the accident (damage to vehicles, emergency responders, etc.) exceeds the revenue from the camera. Penny wise and pound foolish.

ACCIDENT Caused By Red Light Camera!!

I didn't see in the article just what the red light did to cause the accident. Did it say BOOO and frighten the driver or did it just drop down so the oncoming driver had to stop to keep from hitting it? Or did it use its flash attachment and temporarily blind the driver?

You all that think that the RED LIGHT CAMERA caused the accident are FOOLS.

The person driving the car behind the one that stopped caused the accident!!!

Following too close!!!! , Not paying attention!!!! ETC... ETC...

It is the responsibility of the person driving to make sure they are giving enough space between your car and the one ahead, and to pay attention to what is happening ahead of them.

And if you don't believe this then you shouldn't be driving.

I see everyone blaming someone else or something else for everything. This is what LAWYERS want you to believe. NEVER your responsibility!!! If there is an accident it has to be caused by someone/something else.!!!!!!!

H Hannah
Nuvi750 and IQUE3600

I agree with you. However, policing by remote control causes people to make even dumber decisions.

But then that still PEOPLE PROBLIM!!!!

If the same person driving into that intersetion and the saw a police car sitting at the intersetion, he/she would have done the same thing and the accident would have still have happened and the everyone would be blaming the police for causing the accident!!!!!
AND THAT ONSITE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT "causes people to make even dumber decisions."

H Hannah
Nuvi750 and IQUE3600

Now that I have been properly flamed...

In theory in the middle of nowhere keeping intervals is great, but here in the real world traffic flow dictates such things. Having wotked in the claims, accident reconstruction and auto saftey field for 30 years (forthe defense by the way), I have some insight. Try keeping six car lenghts at rsuh hour in a major city at 60 MPH-not going to happen. If you try, someone cuts in and an even more unsafe situation develops.

I agree that defensive driving is key, but external factors can cause people to overreact. I think that was the point, not to absolve the world of responsibility for their actions.

My comments are not just in theory. It's the truth.

Most people believe that:

IT HAS GOT TO BE CAUSED BY SOMEONE/THING ELSE.

If this wasn't true then you would not see THOUSANDS (exaggerated a little) of LAWYERS trying to get you to call them anytime you have a accident so "They can get you all the money you so deserve"!

I know the lawyers are just here to help us!?!?!

That is why there are 6 to 10 time more lawyers than doctors listed in the yellow pages.

And they NEED out business.

H Hannah
Nuvi750 and IQUE3600

PEACE.. TO aLL

More times than not, if you have medical insurance, your insurance company dictates which doctor(s) you see. The doctors have little incentive to advertise -- which is usually to the uninsured.

In contrast, there is no "legal insurance" company which dictates which lawyer(s) you consult. To that end, lawyers have a higher incentive to make sure that anyone and everyone knows of their legal practice/office -- as is the case in a phone book and other forms of advertising.

Next time your kids gets jammed up for doing something stupid I agree, skip the lawyer, instead call your neighbor who has a Nuvi 750...I'm sure he will have all the answers

Regards, Ted

I was just going to post a reply like yours when I read yours. "Right on."

Oh how I love all the self righteous pontificators.
If a cop in a car was at the intersection they have the power to use and at least here in NYC do use discretion in issuing a summons for going through the light. Unlike a machine that must issue the ticket according to how it is programed the cop would in all likelihood not issue the ticket to the car going through the light if by going through the the light a rear end collision was averted.

I don't think so!

I've been caught in Albuquerque on one of their red light cameras. I just paid my fine and learned my lesson. And I try to drive a little more attentive now.

I guess that if you were not seen by the POLICE then you didn't commit the driving infraction.

It's the same as saying "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, is there a sound?

But if someone placed a recorder in the forest and the scenario above happened again, that someone could then go and listen to the recorder. And guess what there was a sound!!!!

It's amazing that when you do something wrong whether any person sees you or not, it still is wrong.

The whole point of this is: Take responsibility for your actions and get on with your life and quite trying to blame someone or something else for your actions.

Just remember THE CAMERA DID NOT RUN THE RED LIGHT

H Hannah

Maybe to avoid situations like this is to have a big digital countdown timer to alert drivers when the light will change to amber or red. They are able to pace themselves accordingly. This lets all drivers know what is to come and avoid accidents. The outcome could have been different if the other drivers behind anticipated that the light is about to change and to slow down.

ummm... how about a light between green and amber? Seriously... that's the purpose of the amber light... "Hey! It's about to turn RED!" Drive accordingly and defensively... if you ride someone's bumper, it's not the light that's going to cause an accident.

Just my 2 cents, I was nearly rear-ended a few weeks ago when I stopped at a red light camera. The car behind me thought I would have gone through it.

Maybe to reply in a little less intimidating tone to h Hannah's comments, but with the same message:

It's not the red light camera that caused the accident, it's the car following too closely. At whatever a safe distance is, whether you are in 60 mph rush hour traffic, or 20-30 mph stop and go traffic, you still need to maintain a safe distance to be able to stop if the car ahead stops suddenly. (This also means you need to be paying attention so you actually see the car's brake lights when they DO stop suddenly.)

The red light camera is there to catch people who are not paying attention, or just don't care if they run a red light and endanger others, though it can malfunction and ticket innocent people, just like all electronic devices can malfunction.

You know people are funny. From the time they are born they will try to get away with what ever they can. If you let a person go thru a yellow light they will try to push it just a little far, pretty soon it's a red light. Now if there is a policeman around, he makes a decision give the person a ticket or let that person go. If you train a monkey to push the red bottom and he gets a shock, or push the blue button and get a banana. He will not push the red button. Drivers are kind of like that monkey. The police have been letting people drive thru these yellow and red lights for years and then they put up a camera and take the human element out of the picture. The drive knows if he runs the light he gets a ticket. So I do not disagree with H Hannah, I say don't change to rules mid stream. Do your job, one thing has not changed since I started driving RED means STOP, always has and always will. If I run a red light I probably deserve a ticket but from a policeman not a camera. And to the guy in back of me quit following so damn close. Also please don't bring up Lawyers or Judges they are half the reason the US is in the shape it in, the politicians are the other

I will take the damned ticket any day as opposed to being rear ended and possibly suffering severe physical damage to my body let alone the car. I sure as hell can't control how the idiot behind me drives but I control how I drive. I look forward to the day when the self righteous moralistic people on this group will post that they were rear ended because they decided that it was better to stop at the light rather than get a ticket for going through it.

In the end, you can only control how YOU drive.

If you don't drive too fast, you don't get speeding tickets (usually)

If you don't go through red lights, you don't get tickets (usually)

If you don't follow too closely for the speed you are driving, you don't cause accidents, or become involved in one (usually)

Everybody just please try to drive safe and enjoy life. GPSrs are very useful and more and more reliable all the time but remember, don't pay more attention to them than you do the road ahead.

I have a few comments to make here and I may be a fool, Since I drive a truck for a living and have logged over 2 million miles with out scratching paint.

I know that cities Likes Houston, TX. have been cited for short timing their traffic lights to increase revenue. so what happens is even though the yellow light is available someone who is familiar with the intersection may make a very hard stop to avoid the ticket and let's face it the person behind is expecting them to go on through. and may even be planing to follow. ( Not a good idea But realistic ) and a collision occurs of course depending on the speed, the front car is often pushed into oncoming traffic. the real solution is a greater delay time from the time one turns green to the time opposing traffic gets the green. of course, as I recall you are not allowed to go no matter what shade of green unless safe to do so !
even though some will never look and gun the throttle as soon as the light changes.

I may not have been paying close enough attention, but in all of these discussions (which seem to come up every couple of weeks or so with just as much vitriol) I have never heard the short-timing thing. That's darn sneaky (and underhanded)!

As you said, not a good idea, in fact a terrible idea. While we can all argue about short yellow cycles and if the lead car should be able to make it through the yellow or not, I think we all can agree that if the light turns yellow with car #1 not yet into the intersection, certainly car #2 SHOULD be coming to a stop (or as is often the case here in Massachusetts, also car #3+).

Regardless if #1 decides to stop or tries to beat the light, #2 should be slowing down to stop. If they rear end #1 because they expected to follow #1 through the intersection, then #2 is completely at fault here.

PT

Why wife received three tickets from red light and/or speed cameras in the past year, which prompted my purchase of a GPS unit for her. There is merit to all of the above arguments, but from our experience, knowledge of the cameras does motivate one to drive more cautiously, thought the risk of spontaneous poor judgment to avoid a fine is still present.

I heard on one of the network news casts the term short timing wish I could take credit for it because it fits.

if memory serves me correctly they said the federal rule/guideline was 4.5 seconds for a 35 MPH zone and Houston was about 3.25 doesn't sound like huge difference but thats about 20%
of your time taken away.

which is huge.

rkf,

Sounds like she just needs to adjust her driving all around. If she is getting tagged by both Light and Speed cameras, it's not a electronic device she needs. It's a wake up call that her driving is an issue.

Why do you need knowledge of a camera location to drive more cautiously? Isn't the fact you are guiding a large object with yours and others lives in your hands enough motivation to drive carefully?

I love when people call and complain that they are being profiled or that the equipment is a problem when they are being stopped frequently. It obviously is a driving issue, people don't leave enough time to get where they want/need to be.

Someone earlier brought up "Officer Discretion". I use a lot of discretion, I look at the driving history, and gather as much info from any witnesses. If they have a history of whatever they are currently stopped for I take the appropriate action.

---------------------------------------

I agree even thought I have logged well over 2 million accident free miles and my last speeding ticket, (last ticket in fact) was about 10 years ago.

I am as guilty of getting away with as much as I can.
I go just under the flow of traffic

(except in construction zones)

I try to stick right on in those.

(my lively-hood depends on it)

Some people already know that in some cities which also have walk / don't walk lights that if you keep an eye on these they will give a 1 to 2 second warning before the yellow light also some locations are now using ones that instead of don't walk they are flashing a countdown timer. I like these very much as you can see them from 100 feet or more and get a feeling for the traffic before you get to the intersection.

as the Quote above mentions most police officers take everything into account I have gone through a light next to a police car that stopped it was raining I could only stop if I jackknifed it and took out the police car the officer turned on his lights and pulled me over
I held my tongue.
(hard for me even now I might add)

and was surprised to get a thank you as my trailer had started to jackknife,
and he was looking in the mirror. doesn't always work out that way but most will listen if you can hold your tongue and temper and explain why you made the choice you made.
if not the law provides you with a second chance.
where else do we get so much leeway?

in 35 years of driving I received 1 ticket that I did not deserve. I took the time to take pictures and took them to court and it was dismissed. as to the others I deserved them I paid the money, And had to adjust my money for awhile.
I hate red-light cameras.

But I think, we will be dealing with them until something is passed in federal Law that forbids them in no uncertain terms. and that is not very likely to happen. in the conceivable future.

The increased rash of red light cameras and photo radar being installed around the country are for one purpose -- it's a cash cow, though the bureaucrats lie thru their teeth and state otherwise.

Here's proof: Recently in Dallas, it was announced that they were going to remove some of the red light cameras, because the compliance rate had increased at those intersections and they weren't making enough money. If safety was really the purpose of these things, as the lying bureaucrats always say, then they should be pleased -- people are complying with the law in response to the installation of their Big Brother camera. But revenue is the purpose, so they are upset that some of these cameras aren't raking it in anymore.

Further proof: There have been a number of instances since police departments got this technology where jurisdictions have been busted shortening the length of the amber light cycle at intersections with red light cameras, with the obvious goal to give out more tickets.

Where I live, in the Phoenix Metro area, the City of Scottsdale put friggin' photo radar for speed in several locations on the freeway going through their city, a national first! It has been so profitable for them that now the Democrat governor wants to put these on highways all over the state. Of course, it's for safety and the chil'run. Yeah right ... If you believe that pantload, you'll buy a bridge from a guy on a street corner.

I agree with H Hannah on the part that it is the drivers responsibility and fault for the accident....it was his/her reaction to the possibility of a ticket that caused them to slam on their brakes... and cause the accidents..

I am sure that all the insurance companies will find that one driver at fault for all of them... and will have no choice but to accept responsibility.... even if they want to blame it on a camera.

Here in Lafayette, LA they have speed vans. These vans park anywhere they want and snap a picture of you speeding. Now they are vans so they can go all over the city so you do not get use to any one spot.

I agree with the purpose of these vans are not for public safety but to generate MONEY. Now people see these vans and pull over. They walk down the road and warn oncoming traffic that they are there. Oh, the city does not own them. They contract them with a company that gets a cut of what tickets they write. So now we have the private sector writing tickets!

UGH!

We have those all over the Phoenix Metro Area too. The solution to always knowing where those revenuers are is to run with a radar detector, something I have done for 30+ years. I never ever leave home without a radar detector.

Re you comment about the "private sector writing tickets" -- Who do you think is installing and running all the 'permanent' photo radar, whether for speed or red light? It is all done by private firms, who contract with the local jurisdictions, who get a percent of the cut.

Agree. I was just bringing the point out. I am not allowed to have a radar detector in my car. Company policy. I just have to stay under the speed limit.

The area mentioned is a 45mph zone. the length of the yellow light is 3 seconds. When the light changes you have two options, punch it hope that you beat the camera or lock em up and pray that you don't get rear ended.

R Raab

The speed and traffic on the 101 East in Phoenix is unbelievable. Anyone who thinks the only reason for speed cameras on that road is to make money for the government is being totally blind to driving patterns. We spend 3 months in the winter there and my wife almost refuses to let me use either the 101 or I-17. I-10 is no better but we seldom are in that part of town. I would like to see more speed cameras on these roads and catch the morons who think 80 to 110 mph are safe speeds especially with the volume of traffic on these roads. I also know the rest of the answer, if you don't like our roads, stay in the midwest in the winter. Just remember what our dollars do for the Phoenix economy.

I wish all areas with Red-light cameras were required to install the walk/don't walk signs that have a countdown to when the light will change. It's used to help pedestrians crossing the street, but is useful for drivers also. I bet this would help eliminate accidents like the one presented.

Like everything else in government cities are pretty much in a budget crisis. I would much rather have the city fining people who are breaking laws (yeah give me any argument you want it is still breaking the law) than raising my taxes.

Double Tap, do you also look forward to the day when one of the wannabe rebels against traffic cameras posts how their child was hit by a car running the red light?

Also the article was taken from a "bash traffic cameras" site. Pretty unbiased if you ask me. Might as well get your Democratic nominee information from Rush Limbaugh.

Oh how I love all the self righteous pontificators.
If a cop in a car was at the intersection they have the power to use and at least here in NYC do use discretion in issuing a summons for going through the light. Unlike a machine that must issue the ticket according to how it is programed the cop would in all likelihood not issue the ticket to the car going through the light if by going through the the light a rear end collision was averted.
[/quote]

The problem with that theory is, if the officer was at the intersection the person still would have hit the brakes and caused the accident. This type of accident happens all the time at intersections without the cameras as well. I have been on a couple in the last month. It is just a plain old DWHUA (Driving With Head Up A**) situation. People are so busy doing other things they don't pay attention. Texting has become the big thing now. You are never really going to be able to prove that you running a light prevented a collision.

I have been told that the correct distance is one car length for each 10 MPH that you are traveling. The last time I tried that at 40MPH, three cars pulled in front of me.

for each 10 MPH IS JUST ABOUT THE SPACE BETWEEN CORRECT AND REALITY

I don't post here too often, but I could not just let this comment go without a response.

I would prefer that the city didn't spend so much money, then they wouldn't have to do either.

If your city is counting on the revenue from these types of fines to balance the budget, then you have REALLY bad government.

Fines are a punishment. Do you really want a government to have an incentive to produce laws that fine people to generate revenue? I can't imagine where that would end. Let's fine people for blowing their nose in public. It is very unsightly and a health hazard too.

And as far as your Rush Limabuagh comment is concerned, as things develop with the last nominee, it looks like Limbaugh was pretty much right after all.

If you run into the person ahead of you, then you must have been tailgating and not maintaining a safe distance to begin with.

If the money is really needed, it is much preferrable that it is raised through taxes. It is better that the burden be shared over a much larger group of people instead of just dumping the burden on the unlucky few who get trapped by a short yellow. Of course, the preferred choice is to do more with the tax money already collected.

Also, anyone who is looking forward to anyone being hit in an accident has a problem, whether that accident is from running a red light or being involved in a rear end collision that is precipitated by the presence of ticketing cameras.

the guy who stopped at the red light was driving safely and doing what he was supposed to do. Even so, he is the one that gets crashed into when the driver behind doesn't pay attention and is following too closely.

I know a lot of people believe red light cameras are just there for the revenue but it is not always the case.
In Garland, TX they are advertising all their red light cameras on their web site so everyone knows where they are and uses caution. They say it has minimized accidents at the intersections and is a success.

You folks are forgetting THE most important thing here. The collision occurred OUTSIDE the intersection. Therefore, like the tree in the forest, it did not happen.

The city can still use their stats on reduction of accidents WITHIN the intersection to push for more cameras.

C'mon guys, get with the program. It's all about revenue!