Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

Agree 100%

That's funny, do you do work in science? There's no direct correlation between redlight cameras and decrease of accidents in this case. Just because the accidents decreased in year 2 (not year 1, immediately after install), does not mean the red light camera had anything to do with the decrease.

Nuvic, do you have anything other than hearsay as proof the cameras do not reduce accidents over time? There are plenty of studies out there by major universities (that need to spend our taxpayer grant money) that show otherwise. Just as stated, there is normally a rise in the number of accidents shortly after the camera is installed, but the number begins to decrease after the camera has been in place for a few months. Those first few months do skew the total count for the year and that's why you don't see the numbers going down until the second year.

Sounds like sour grapes, You must Speed and run Redlights to have that frame of mind!

It means enter the intersection with caution.
You will not receive a traffic ticket for going through a yellow (Caution) light. Or if the light turn Red while you are in the intersection.

Joemac

Follow the link……

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=019_1232690422

Then you make the call, Money or Safety.

Joemac

The fact is that each of those videos was taken from red light cameras. And STILL those people ran the lights.

Did the cameras prevent the events? No.

But the city will get to profit from what they did.

I DO agree that the video record is useful for accident analysis. But I have issues with the 24/7 on-site revenue generation.

Some people are simply slow to react. Of interest is that they don't show the transition from green to yellow, but I'll wager that they have the minimum (or less than the minimum) yellow dwell time.

The fact is that apparently more than 90% of red light running can be resolved simply by increasing the yellow light time . . and the number of accidents decreased for the remaining runners if there is a one second delay before granting the green.

These two changes will resolve as much as installing cameras and do more for the accident rate - what's the point of reducing intersection collissions when the number of read-enders goes up in compensation?

And, it's FREE, except for the cost of programming.

But there's no revenue!!!

Some of those lights had been red for several seconds before the car entered the intersection. It takes, on average 12 seconds for the first car to go through an intersection and 8 seconds for each succeeding car. If a car, on the green has entered the intersection, it means the light had to have been green for them for a minimum of 2 seconds to react and then another 2 seconds to get up to at least 15 MPH. Longer yellows wouldn't have had any effect on the images shown in these selected videos. The idiot entered the intersection LONG after the light had changed. Other cars traveling the same direction had time to stop when they were passed.

Whether you agree with the use of cameras or not, the videos show the runner didn't stop and a 30 second yellow wouldn't have made a difference.

I don’t think a 5, 10 or 15 second yellow light would make any difference.

Increasing the Yellow light timing only means one has more time to run through the yellow light. I have like most of you have had a vehicle in front of you slow down a little incase the light is ready to change, when said light changes to yellow the driver speeds up to cross the intersection on a caution light.
What I fail to see is when I approach a yellow light and prepare to stop the driver in the other lane speeds up and runs through the yellow light. After the light turns green you go, low and behold the driver who ran through that yellow light is stopped in front of you at the red light.
It’s hard for me to understand why anyone would take the risk of misjudging the timing on a yellow light and run through one. I know there are times it’s unavoidable.
A car or motorcycle in the cross traffic may also be in a hurry. The light turn green for them and they punch it, POW a T-bone accident. Maybe all involved will be lucky and celebrate their next birthday, then again maybe not.

Joemac

My wife got a Red Light Camera Citation in the mail. My daughter was driving the car at the time and the citation went to the first name on the registration. When we asked our daughter about failing to stop her reply was....Nuh Uh! I stopped!

So, I pulled up the video on the redlight camer website. I filled in the Citation Number and the License Plate Number. Up popped the video and there it was. She failed to come to a complete stop on a right-turn-on-red. She payed the $100 fine.

It was an expensive lesson. It woluld be interesting to know how much the City of Lombard, IL makes on Photo Citations.

I can agee with that. But as the length gets less than 5 seconds it can make a huge difference. If the yellow duration is short enough, the combination of speed, reaction time, and braking distance can make it impossible to avoid being in the intersection on the red - if you hit the light-change just right. That's why the short-yellow is such a money-maker.

They did that to get around the evidence code. See a "picture" cannot testify against you in a court where you could get sentenced to "jail time". So to get around that nasty "evidence code" problem they made it a "civil offense". It's all about the money. "Safety" is just the "window dressing" to get the public to swallow the Kool Aid.

Overlapped red lights will largely resolve the issue you raised in your last paragraph.

That "Increasing the Yellow light timing only means one has more time to run through the yellow light" is just fine thanks, because running through the yellow light is legal.

However trading off incursion accidents for overall higher accident rates, just shifted to being mainly rear-enders is NOT acceptable. The goal MUST be to improve safety.

It is well proved that extending yellow dwell times to 5 seconds and overlapping red light periods by 2 seconds (on standard 30 mph intersections) goes a very long way to reducing the offense rate.

If cities were truly 'concerned about safety', then they would program their most difficult intersections for the safest operating conditions possible, and not shave timing to the minimum and below. What they do by shortening yellow light dwell times is tantamount to entrapment.

I heartily agree with the governor in whatever state it was that I read about here who will direct all revenue from speedcams for offenses of less than 10 over to the state's general fund. It is about time for the govrnment to act in the best interests of the citizens and NOT solely for those of the administrations.

I happen to be from Canada (Montreal) and the $100 fines you guys get for violating whatever law your cameras are set for are a joke. Up here they charge $300 and more - and they operate the network themselves. It's all for profit.

I live in the Midwest but having just visiting Phoenix, AZ where there is an abundance of cameras and I have them on my Garmin, I found that most people slow down at camera intersections and speed camera places so in a long run people pay attention. It has to be brought to their attention and money is a good start. Idiots pay the price of speeding.

You must be one of those drivers that feel the yellow warning light means go like H*LL because it's going to turn red rather than a warning to slow down and prepare to stop. All the driver training manuals and licensing handbooks I have seen say yellow means prepare to stop. Must be different in Canada.

Green means go.

Yellow means go but a red is about to follow.

Red means stop. You clear the intersection if you're in the left hand lane and you were in the intersection before the light turned yellow. Otherwise, your ass just ran a red (straight or right hand turn)

Remember that. Red means stop. It doesn't mean you have a 5 second grace period to run the red before the other perpendicular lights turn green. It means stop. You're caught in the intersection when it's red, you ran a red.

Think of it like this. I'm beating you with a baseball bat and you yell for me to stop. Do you want me to stop immediately, or are you going to give me a 5 second grace period before I have to stop?

Hearsay? The story quoted a government study!! If red cameras work, they should reduce accidents immediately, not a year after!! Your logic makes no sense. If red light camers increase accidents after install, then they're bad!!

Any device that increases accidents, I don't care what anyone says, is bad. I fail to understand those who continue to justify them in the face of clear evidence that they do not reduce accidents.

Also, although this is irrelevant and besides the points, where is your evidence besides hearsay that red light cameras increase accidents in the first few months and then go down? I keep seeing people post this garbage but see no facts to back it up. Again, even if true, any device that increases accidents at any point in time is bad.

Here's a link to the University of VA that lists many different studies. http://firstsearch.oclc.org/WebZ/FSFETCH?fetchtype=fullrecor...

I would like to test out the redlight Camera POI file. any ideas on how to get it?

I was watching the news on TV the other night and in Charlotte, NC the latest is: Devices are installed at lights and when a car goes through a red light the device lights. Then the police which are watching the device goes after the car and tickets them. The device is a small light on a pole. Charlotte lost a court battle about red light cameras and the amount the city/schools got versus the company that ran the cameras. So this is their new way to generate "revenue"/increase safety.

In California, at least, you have the *right* to enter the intersection as long as you pass the limit line while the light is yellow.

If it turns red after you pass the limit line you are in the right and the redlight camera is not supposed to ticket you.

I can't say how it is in other states.

In our city, the camera takes a picture before and after you enter an intersection and (you may not be aware of this) the cameras take movies of each intersection 24/7/365. If your front bumper is in the intersection and the light is yellow, no ticket. If it is red, the violation is reviewed by an officer and a ticket issued if warranted (no mitigating circumstances like ambulance coming, stopping would cause a dangerous situation, etc).

The yellow lights last 3-4+ seconds, plenty of time to come to a stop if you are paying attention. No reaction time issues.

i hate these red light cameras and the speed cameras.. its just so un-american in all aspects.. total BIG BROTHER.

It's all about revenue. The government agencies that put in those redlight and speed cameras make a lot of money from them.

Practically speaking they are making money they don't then have to soak us for taxes. But I don't like automated enforcement, I like to face my accuser.

So if they red light camera revenue didn't go to the city or agency that put them in and pays for them, I would put up with it.

Like for instance, if we passed a law where 100% of the money goes to affordable housing, none to run the cameras, pay vendors, none to the police or the city, then their hands would be clean. It could be all about safety.

But it's not all about safety and they keep the money. So they have unclean hands.

looks like insurance companies profit the most

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-acc...

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009...

It's not about the money?

I haven't had a ticket in 45 years of driving.

And I have put over 500,000 miles of driving in those 45 years.

I don't like the red light cameras for many reasons:
They obfuscate the law with regards to the Evidence Code (of California).
Anything completely automated is inherently missing human judgment. There are many completely legal reasons to be in an intersections after the light turns red. Lacking the human judgment (no cops involved) and making the flawed decision that the vehicle was improperly in the intersection results in a tax (read citation here).

That is wrong in my judgment.

The stats on accidents can be argued till the cows come home, and I find it interesting that no credible impartial studies have been done.

And what I also find interesting is how willing people are to give up a little freedom (you did lose a very important section of the Evidence Code), in exchange of very little feeling of security.

Very sad commentary the beliefs and thinking of todays people.

I am not sure if I like human judgement or not. With speed enforcement (using radar), there is a lot of judgement as to which car is speeding (depending on the setup) and I don't like that.

In Arizona, it is terrifying to drive on highways or near intersections with speed or red light cameras. When the speed camera is approached, drivers will slam on the brakes and slow from 70 (speed limit is generally 65) down to 50 or less. Don't tell me to leave more space between my car and the car ahead... someone will fill the gap. With red light cameras, the same thing occurs. The person in front of you sees the light turn yellow and slams on the brakes going from 35 or 40 to 0 in no time.

My fear is that when it rains and the roads become very slick or during the monsoon season when visibility can be very poor (often changing in seconds) that there will be a major multi-car pileup on the freeway or at an intersection.

If the cops would promote a 4-way red for a second or two at intersections, then accidents would be reduced. If the public would understand that the speed cameras allow up to 10 over the limit, the slamming on of the brakes might stop as well.

The fines in Arizona are astronomical, since the camera companies and the cops want all that revenue.

Let's make safety a priority. How about having cops that stop the guy weaving in and out of traffic or driving 40 in the left lane of a 65 zone. Do something that really lowers accidents. Driving 75 in most 65 zones is not life threatening... only personal budget threatening.

My $400 worth (I think that is the cost of a speed camera ticket in the Phoenix area).

The cameras in my town tend to cause more accidents but they are less serious. I seem to drive by and almost once a month I see someone rear ended because a local stops because they know how sensitive the cameras are and the they are rear ended. Just saw it yesterday and I laughed and said there’s another one! Most of the accidents are less serious than a full running of a red light but these are three way intersections and I have to say I never saw an accident before the light was put up. We also have to cameras in on the same road in about a quarter of a mile. I don’t understand that either.

I believe I know the reason;

They thought that people would get through the first set of lights safely, then mess up for the second set.

Co-ordinated lighting would solve that nicely.

One reason people slam their brakes on when approaching an RLC equipped intersection is that they have no idea how long the yellow will be active, so many drivers engage the brakes the instant the light changes.

A lot of that would be eliminated if the yellow was one some nice long time, rather than have people wondering just how short they'd cropped the timing.

So as to the accidents, measured experience tends to back up your observations.

From the declared perspective of safety, the real solution is longer dwell times for the cautionary yellows and overlapped red lights combined, which they could implement separately from electronic ticketing. That would reduce red light running significantly, without the need for RLCs.

But they won't.

As to the adage that 'drivers cause the accidents'; That's crap.

Yes, if no one drove, no one would speed or run red lights. But the term accident means something that happened 'not on purpose'.

Yes, as long as people drive their own cars, some of them will speed and run red lights and others will be timid and stomp their brakes when the light at the intersection goes yellow. If the aggressive ones are behind the timid ones then the potential for a rear-ender is increased.

But the authorities in many jurisdictions increase the likelihood of rear-end collisions by reducing yellow dwell times to the minimum and below.

It would be interesting if a movement sprung up on this side of the ocean, like they have in the UK where cameras are often 'removed from service' by persons unknown.

They want them here in Jacksonville but they are still trying to decide if they are going to be legal.

Hope they don't get them here!

You may want to re-read... year one would be from date of install up to 365 days later. Not exactly immediate. Compare year one post install to year -1 (prior to install) or however long you like. The longer the better. That is where you see the true impact.

You're right just looking at one year to the next won't tell you anything, but look at all the years and you'll see...

But to go along with your argument, redlight cameras have absolutely no effect on an increase in the number of [rear end] accidents either.

what innocent red light (speed) camera is...

Think if we don't run through it. There is no issue, and hence no need for its existence since there is no more revenue resulting from it.

So, why blame on it?

Have to blame something or someone. I couldn't possibly be someone's own fault for running a redlight pr speeding could it?

Some bureaucat down at city hall is responsible for putting this thing up that took my picture! Don't i have a right to privacy here when I don't stop and there's no cop around? Who was it that saw me speeding? Everybody travels down this street at 40. There's no reason it should be posted 25! Come on!! How about some sympathy here!!!

In Louisiana we can get the red light and speeding cameras working, but we can't get the crime cameras working. go figure!!! This is how you we get screwed over and over.....

...It doesn't take into account human reaction times and other circumstances that may affect stopping....

Exactly!

Whatever happened to HONESTY? It seems that over 75% of the things we do around the globe are crooked, and its just a matter of time before we find out how crooked it really was. I guess money really is the root of all EVIL.

You have no right to privacy on a public street. There are legal avenues to address your belief that the posted speed limit should be changed. Just ignoring the law is not one of the legal ways to express your opinion.

To me, it is the principle that bothers me about getting a moving violation from a machine. When a police officer pulls you over there is a chance for interaction that makes the difference in life.
Besides, I feel that if cities really wanted to save lives they should extend the time the yellow signal stays on and have a longer space between the green and red lights.
JeffSh

I would like to know who is making the calls on the "gray areas" when the light was yellow, etc. Is it the company who makes money on the red light cameras?

Principle? don't run red lights and don't speed then the machine won't be sending you anything! it doesn't get any simpler than that!

Cities should extend the time yellow stays on?
Is that so instead of 1 or two people trying to beat the light turns out to be 5 or 6?

Just slow down and when you see the yellow begin to cycle, start to brake to a stop don't accelerate to a ticket.

If you followed the thread you would know the company reviews the footage from teh camera and then forwards on to a designated officer in each locality the images for action. The companies make no judgement on gray or any other areas, just if the vehicle/driver can be identified. It's a designated police officer that reviews the images and decides if a citation will be issued.

Understand that many cities are SHORTENING the Yellow dwell time in order to entrap people and, from a safety perspective, you do a lot better by increasing yellow dwell and overlapping reds than you do installing RLCs.

But you don't make any money by doing that.

Decreasing the Yellow dwell to the point where you need hair trigger braking only increases rear-end collisions.

It is ALL about the money and nothing more.

The lists that mr. Smartypants provided were wrong!

The facts are that automated enforcement is a scheme perpetrated by contractors who designed these camera systems to make money, plain and simple. However they had to find cash strapped government agencies who would do *anything* to keep more money in the government to pay their elaborate salaries and benefits. So they get the city council to go ahead and let the contractors put the systems in and they did it on commission!

Naturally this created a perverse incentive on the part of the contractor to find a way to increase citations and their profits, and some did this by decreasing the yellow light time to less than required by law. Lockheed Martin in San Diego, CA.

Fortunately these schemes were made illegal at least here in California and now they can only pay the vendors by the month. This removes the vendor incentive. It surprises me that they are still putting the cameras in here in California since other states have no prohibition against the vendor being paid on commission, a much more lucrative situation for them.

I had this very discussion with the ATS salesman at the local council meeting. "Why the heck are you here wanting to put the system in California when every other state must me more lucrative for you since you can be paid on commission?". He didn't answer me. Heh.

If you want everyone involved to have clean hands here just change the law to set the fine for all automated enforcement systems at $4, and make 100% of that to be used solely for affordable housing. No fine money to pay for the camera, no fine money to pay vendors, no fine money for the city or the state, nothing.

They could still put in the cameras and they would then be completely safety oriented and there would be no incentive to give out tickets to make money.

neither. A police officer I want to face my accuser.

When you get to the intersection just punch the accelerator and get through the intersection as fast as you can! That is, unless the light starts changing, in which case, you stomp on the brakes!!

Just kidding. Seems that the crucial factor is driving speed along with road conditions.

Doh
I just got a ticket in the mail.
Has a nice link to see the pics online
and another link to see a video of my car going thru
the red light.

Oh well.