Maryland and Florida Red Light Cams

I agree, but I feel that their increasingly lower cost would be the main reason for expansion of the program, rather than traffic increase (which in most cases tends to reduce average speed)

Glad to hear that someone is thinking..

http://www.news4jax.com/news/22345716/detail.html

haha, funny

I get a 404

that MD has mobile speed cams, no sign required.

I would only be concerned with the law where I live, when away from home, just try to stop when the light is red, not really a big deal imho.

Maryland Code 21-809 (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?artic...) requires signage Indicating that speed monitoring systems are in use in the school zone. No differentiation between fixed & mobile.
Maryland Code 21-810 (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?artic...) requires that "a conspicuous road sign is placed at a reasonable distance consistent with national guidelines before the work zone alerting drivers that a speed monitoring system may be in operation in the work zone." Again no differentiation between fixed & mobile installations. The SHA usually has a big "Your Speed Is" sign before a work zone speed camera location.
Mark

among the largest number of speed & redlight cameras in the nation. Some say for safety. Others for income.
Take your pick.
Fred
(from MD)

It's definitely about income.

The story is over six years old. The TV station probably wiped it's archive by now.

would you come that conclusion?

THAT SAID, I'll address the above, posted 9 years ago ...

Don't know what the law was then, but here in Pennsylvania now, a sign warning you of an upcoming red light camera is required by law. here's an example of one in Philadelphia.

https://cbsphilly.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/redlight.jpg

I drive for a living in Philly and have seen these signs prior to every camera controlled intersection I've come upon within the block the camera is located.

A snippet from a 2013 article about the cameras in Philly ...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4034.asp

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania deputized American Traffic Solutions (ATS, formerly Mulvihill) in 2005, granting the Arizona-based for-profit firm authority to issue traffic tickets at intersections on the city's behalf. The red light camera program's current logo includes a spy camera bearing the motto "Slow down and smile. We're keeping tabs so we can keep you safe." Ten years' worth of data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation show traffic has become less safe as accidents increased at the first two intersections to use photo enforcement.

The results were nearly identical at the Red Lion Road location where accidents increased 18 percent from 82 to 100 once cameras were operational. In the before period, 56 collisions involved an injury, a figure which grew to 80 in the after period. Again, cameras did not reduce angle collisions, as the photo enforcement proponents promised they would.

You just have to love articles like this which pick and choose exactly how they want to compares apples and elephants. The first question that comes to my mind is are the statistics cited using the same criteria? If the first number counts only accidents where there were injuries or the property damage was above a certain value did the second use the same criteria or did it lump all accidents together in order to show a gross disparage? I always question reports from the source cited as it has been shown many times in the past they do regularly compare elephants to apples in order to make their point that "all cameras are bad."

On the flip side I'm not seeing where it says, or suggests, the comparisons weren't of the same type.

Which should be an indicator. Usually statistics from a police department on the number of accidents will state which type of accident is reported, hence my statement about injury or higher property damage amounts. The Newspaper has been known (and shown in these forums among other places)it will compare one set of numbers to a different set even though they are reporting different things but fall under the general heading of 'accident.'

If one reports at a certain intersection there were, in a five year period, say 100 injury accidents and another similar period after the installation of a camera there were more than 5000 would you believe the second number reported injury accidents? That's an example of how you can cherry pick statistics by comparing one type to say all accidents which included people striking the curb or even rear-end accidents. This is often the case when a story doesn't report or relay which statistics it is using, often the case with The Newspaper.

If you click the link in my first post The Newspaper offers the source for the stats, PennDot, the state department of transportation, along with a link to a copy of the PennDot report.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2013/pa-rlcresults.pdf

I have not gone back to the original thenewspaper.com article but I appreciate your link to the data.

I note that the before comparison was for the five years 2000 thru 2004; the after comparison was for the five years 2007 thru 2011.

Given that we are talking about only 2 camera installations, it is not likely that we can draw statistically significant conclusions about the effectiveness of the camera.

Missing the two intervening years between the before and after sets of data throws up a red flag.

Missing other data about other factors such as how the approaches to these camera locations might have changed in terms of sightlines, road widths etc; not knowing how the traffic on the approaches might have increased (or decreased); had the speed limits on approaches changed over time, etc.. All these factors should have been investigated.

I try to find the original article.

The article focused on the first two cameras ever in PA/Philadelphia. They were place at intersections on Roosevelt Blvd, often listed in the top 5 most dangerous roads in the country. I travel it quite often. The physical aspects road have not changed, for the most part. There is one spot where a circle has been redesigned, but that area was not part of the article. I don't believe the speed limit has either.

Here's a description of the road as offered by a site listed the top 5 most dangerous roads in America:

Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

While the other roads mentioned on this list are highways, Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia is included because of its notoriety as one of the most dangerous thoroughfares in America. The boulevard consists of six 12-foot wide lanes in each direction, and drivers regularly exceed the posted 45 miles per hour and take the road’s dangerous curves far too fast. The boulevard also has two of the nation’s most dangerous intersections, where confused drivers frequently turn into the wrong three-lane stretch of traffic.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=32057

I know stats can be manipulated & offered to present whatever view you want, I'm not saying it didn't happen here, but I'm also not saying it has. I know the area well, I know how people drive in the area and can believe the increase happened, not scientifically of course, just from my personal experience and knowledge of the area.

Again common sense should prevail. The avg adult at times struggles with mpg and range, two concepts that have been introduced with most vehicles and their computers. Without being able to grasp those, ds/dt would be a likely stretch, as would reliability and validity.

It seems that here the objective is often to conclude that cameras do not work, and if they do work, that the government is corrupt and therefore fines are unfair somehow.

But, I saw something again last week that I saw a flatbed tow truck operator do. A car came out of a gas station, bypassed the folks waiting to make a left turn, and made a left turn on the other side of the double-yellow. It truly must be that this is a way to beat the camera.

So for those who think the cameras are unfair, don't work, govt. behind them are corrupt, why not simply beat them altogether? Again, I have no problem with them, but if you do, just flat out beat them.