Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

Hopefully this hasn't already been posted here, I haven't seen it before. The most recent clip was dated June 2009, didn't spot any dated any newer. WARNING: This contains video of actual collisions from red light runners; some can be difficult to watch. It isn't likely that everyone walked away with minor injuries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk

Nearly all seemed to be someone running a red light due to inattention or speeding, not sure how a red light camera would prevent these, but the video at least documented what happened.

Those fright films will become a thing of the past.

In that never ending quest for safety and control, Big Blue might have the solution: http://www.news.com.au/technology/ibm-applies-for-right-to-s...

The fine from a red light camera is generally lower than when caught by a policeman. There aren't any driving points associated with that ticket. SO red light cameras are better than cops in some ways.

Isn't most of the footage *from* the video cameras connected to RLCs? In that case, the RLCs obviously didn't prevent the accidents.

See link:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/cameras-252545-city-light.htm...

We showed this video at one of our company safety meetings,needless to say, everyone was in shock. Our company also has drive-cams and too bad I can't share that with you...somethings we do while were driving...

you have a good point, but cameras won't waste your time and won't ruin your day right away

I'll start with the assumption that most of the readers of this post will have downloaded thetraffic camera POI file and installed it.

For those opposed to cameras because they are thought to be only for revenue purposes, let me suggest a way you can actively express your displeasure.

Since you will likely know where the cameras are and have slowed down, why don't you use the age-old method of warning oncoming drivers by flashing your lights at them. If enough people did this, then there would be no revenue at all generated by the cameras. Then, if revenue were the real reason, the municipality would not renew the contract with the company maintaining the camera. If the municipality did not renew, wouldn't this be proof of their original intent?

Have I replied to this topic yet?

If not..
The simple answer to the subject "Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?"
Yes..yes they are.

YES!

I and I'm sure a lot of people agree that red light and speed cameras should be about safety. The fact is, cities view it as revenue building.

These devices come to mind when cities need or want or revenue. They also use them as a way to "free up" officers for other tasks. The federal and state governments are not giving them money for these programs. As a result, there is no basis and no incentive to spend money, enter contracts and then send the money to the state capitol or to Washington.

These cities or local governments contract with a red light or speed camera provider and enter into a contract (3-5) years typically, for their services. The companies essential promise that, if used effectively, the cameras will pay for themselves and provide revenue for the local governement. The pitch for the public is based on safety.

One of the well-known issues is the length of the yellow light. In order to make up for the changes in driver behavior and to keep revenue up, some jurisdictions shorten the yellow lights. That is a significant safety problem, for obvious reasons.

Do readlight and speed cameras work, sometimes yes. I like them around schools as it forces drivers to be more careful. However, there is at least one other less expensive option in school zones. They could use mutiple speed bumps to induce slower driving. Most of us do not want to damage our cars or rattle our brains speeding over speed bumps.

Ordinarily, these violations are traffic infractions rather than crimes.

I can't speak for all jurisdictions, but the ones that I am aware of treat these as a no-point, monetary fine infraction.

The 55 or 60 m.p.h. is generally set by the federal government (for many years). Compliance results in the state receiving federal funding for highway projects.

Flashing your headlights is not the answer. Most people will not know what it means. Also, flashing your lights is recognized by the police as a interference in them doing their job. We used to do it to warn about speed traps. If the police see you, they will ticket you for "interfering with a traffic control device". The device is them.

The reality is that the intention and function of these cameras cannot be categorized into a simple dichotomy of safety vs. revenue. It is both and the placement of these cameras can be sold to the public by emphasizing the win-win nature of this technology. Certainly, there is public outcry over the revenue grabbing but even this could be spun as selective ‘taxation’ of offenders much like sin taxes thus achieving tacit approval.

But, let’s change this around a little bit. Why not start with the assumption that these fixed cameras just shift the problem to other areas? That’s the main criticism of surveillance cameras used for other purposes. For example, see the following article:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/06/the-failure-of-surveil....

Seemingly then, the only way to combat that problem would be extensive unobtrusive surveillance, perhaps using an eye in the sky once drones are approved by the FAA. The larger question becomes: Is this where we’re headed as a society and if so, what’s the proper response?

I would argue that in the larger scheme of things that an unchallenged proliferation of cameras should be the target. In some respects it’s a futile gesture to be sure, kind of like King Canute ordering the waves back in reference to the social effect of the inevitable evolution of technology.

I’m not arguing for a Neo-Luddite response. Rather, that the public actually think about the implications through debate so that the technology is implemented with proper legal safeguards.

Here are some developments that point to the future: http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/science-scope/in-...

And it just won’t be real-time surveillance but also data mining to provide analysis of past behavior.
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/14/predictive-analysis-ibm/

I agree. Very few issues can, or should, be framed as "right' versus "wrong" but that seems to be what many people do. They take their cues from their favorite commentator and do not do their own investigation.

Our country has its Constitution which many people like to employ as supporting their point of view - like their right to privacy (which they would interpret as having no cameras of whatever variety). My belief is that we should view things as evolutionary depending on the circumstances. Recall that when this country was founded, only white male landowners could vote and slavery was a fact of life. I hope that most of us are proud of the fact that the amendments to the constitution have brought us to where we are - and that other changes may be needed to adapt to new circumstances.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. Necessary maybe, but it's not something that everyone is guaranteed to be allowed to do. Because of that, you need to follow certain rules (vehicle and traffic codes) to maintain your driving privilege. Face it, in a Utopian society, if everyone followed the rules of the road, red light cameras wouldn't even be a thought and radar guns would be science fiction...

My $.02.....

[quote=I don't know about you, but being pulled over by the police these days can be scary since you never know what you are going to get!

I understand the arguments against having automated cameras especially since they are prone to being tweaked illegally to gain more revenue.

I do appreciate the fact that cameras are being installed on more police vehicles to record law enforcement officers' conduct.

You can make a bery strong case for these on both side. It probably would save many lawsuits or claims of mistreatment and on the same token bolster valid ones.

Squad cars should have video cameras to videotape what's happening just ahead of the car. Saves a lot of disputes and improves behavior.

For the same reason, all police should not just be videotaping confessions, but entire criminal interrogations. Again: settles disputes, and people behave better when they're being taped.

Some departments have these policies already.

But I come from a state (Illinois) where there have been many criminal convictions with the death penalty attached that were primarily based on a confession during police interrogation which the defendant later recanted, claiming abusive interrogation tactics. Too many of these convictions were later overturned after DNA evidence excluded the defendant. If I'm a jury member, and they show me a videotape of a confession, but didn't tape the rest of the interrogation, I'm discounting the tape of the confession if the defendant has since recanted it. Confessions are just too easy to manipulate. Most people can be made to confess to anything. There was one high-profile case here recently, not a death penalty case, but a father "confessed" to raping and murdering his young daughter. He recanted but was jailed anyway, based on his confession. DNA later showed he was not the one. The real perp was already in prison on other charges. Confession doesn't mean much if no one can see how they got to that point.

what ever make the world a safer place

Is automated speeding tickets.
Its just a money grab.

http://dailyherald.com/article/20101006/news/710079914/

In Northern Illinois Kane County, this article states in part:

"Red light cameras may be only months away from vanishing from Kane County roads thanks to new rules awaiting a county board vote.

Kane County oversees all the permitting for red light cameras at intersections involving county roads. On Wednesday, the county board's Executive Committee advanced rule changes to the full county board that restrict the life span of a camera to three years. The rules also impose new standards for local municipalities to reach in trying to justify placing a camera at a county intersection.

The idea is to make red light cameras a means of last resort to correct accident-prone intersections. "

Red light cameras are bad. They're worse when they are also a speed camera also.

Of course it's the drivers' fault. Every time. If you try to say the cameras cause accidents, you're just lying, showing ignorance, or being irrational. The cameras force nobody into an accident.

If you disagree, then you'd have to say that the threat of actual human police enforcement also causes accidents.

Actually, it's driving irresponsibly that causes accidents.

So slow down drivers. Wear your seat belts. Be patient. Leave early in case traffic is bad.

Most of the time, ztodd, of course, you're right. But to say every time, my way or the highway... not a good idea. If you can't conceive of getting set up to be in violation or in an accident by overly aggressive enforcement or a malfunctioning machine, you're not using much imagination here, and clearly the concept of speed trap is a new one to you.

If they wanna get you, they can.

We have red light cameras here on intersections with speed limits of 50 mph. Go through that intersection every day for a year so you've got the timing of the yellow down just so. You know just how to judge it. Now let's say they cut the yellow time in half, and put you going 50 mph, with the yellow light timing you're used to, and a 50 mph car two seconds in front of you, and another two seconds behind you. The car in front of you is 75 yards away as the light goes yellow. I hope Lady Luck is with you, because you'll need her without an accident, a ticket, or both.

Agree!

dobs108

I think it is 75 feet

I lived the moment this morning as a lime-yellow Maserati was behind me ten feet away as I approached the traffic signal on a four-lane road. As we went 55 in a 45 mph zone, the traffic signal (no red light camera) turned yellow (3 seconds) then red before I got there. I braked a little hard and stopped at the stopline. The Maserati changed lanes to pass on my right and blew the light. I figured the car had a fiberglas body and couldn't hurt me!

dobs108

While either 75 feet or 75 yards increases the risk of a problem, a little web research convinced me that your number's the more dangerous of the two. Having the first of three cars 75 feet away when the light went yellow in this scenario would put the middle car at much higher than normal risk of a ticket and/or an accident. Here's how I determined that.

The proper minimum yellow-light length at 50 mph recommended by one website (they show their math, but their recommended standard may not be objective, as this website is clearly anti-RLC) is 5.5 seconds.
http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/

Anyway, say a yellow light had been set to 5.5 seconds, then it's suddenly cut to 2.75 seconds. At 50 mph, in 2.75 seconds, a car travels 202 feet. In 4.75 seconds, 349 feet. In 6.75 seconds, 496 feet.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2306812_convert-mph-feet-per-second....

It takes 235 feet to stop an average car at 50 mph, assuming normal reaction time.
http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/auto.html

The first driver is at high risk of a ticket. Even if he slams on his brakes in time to avoid it, the second car is likely to hit him or get a RLC ticket passing him. The third car may hit either of the two cars ahead of him if they stop, or he could panic stop in time before crossing the stop line.

It is of course possible but not highly likely that all three drivers would stop in time to avoid both an RLC ticket and an accident. Somebody with more time and experience than I have in these calculations could determine a range of feet from the intersection and length of yellow light where the risk of tickets or accidents is highest.

My point is that even with legal driver behavior and good driving practices, you can be tricked into committing a violation or get into an accident in which the timing of the yellow light and the presence of red light cameras were significant contributory factors. Is it the norm? Of course not. Is it possible? Of course it is.

One way to avoid bening "tricked" is to lobby for standards in the laws authorizing Automated Traffic Enforcement. Not all jurisdictions have minimum standards but we know some do. Otherwise, we would not read the articles which make much out of those instances where a yellow light is found to be less that such minimum (usually with the tickets at that intersection being rescinded).

I still do this on Interstates, but not too many others do. I wish more people knew about this courtesy. You don't have to flash immediately, you can wait a reasonable distance so you're not easily seen or easily identified and, during daylight hours, the officer won't notice at all. Spread the word!

I have always encouraged my family to follow the three second rule in determining how much distance to keep from the car in front of you, even though there are some driving instructors that say two seconds.

I also try to avoid having someone behind me who is following too closely. I have noticed that it is usually someone talking on their cell phone. If I can, I move out of their way, otherwise I slow down - so that the distance they will take to stop (if they are required to) is reduced.

The interesting thing about keeping a proper distance is that all traffic can go faster.

How many times on the highway have you been caught in a slowdown only to find a mile up the road that it was only someone changing a flat tire. usually what happens is that someone slows to find out what was going on; the person behind that drive was too close and had to brake; then the drivers behind saw the brake lights and braked also. All of a sudden, traffic which had been flowing normally slow down by 10 to 20 miles an hour and you create a traffic jam.

If all the drivers had proper distances they could look if they wanted and not have to slow down appreciably.

Cameras are just revenue generators for the city, can't get drunk/reckless drivers off the road, etc.

Police officers cant do this either. Oh, they may stop a few, but until the operator takes responsibility for their actions and modifies their behavior, there will always be impaired drivers on the road.

Being pulled over by a cop provides a huge disincentive for running red lights. Being pulled over is going to add 15 minutes to your trip in addition to the fine. Being stopped by a cop is going to make you more late while a traffic camera allows you to proceed without hinderance (and probably a danger to other drivers).

So if safety is a concern, Cops are better than cameras.

I think the old argument on whether or not redlight cameras are there for safety or revenue is academic. Red light cameras that were not profitable in various counties and municipalities all over the country have been removed and in some cases relocated.
They are there for profit, any other benefits they may or may not have are subordinate to their intended purpose of generating profit.

With these assertions in mind, what do you think of red light cameras?

they are sucks

Right on... no exception, even if you try to avoid accident... it's money cow after all!

Has anyone compared the "Garmin Speedcams: Cyclops™ Safety Cameras - U.S. & Canada" vs the POI Factory Speed Camera information?
Are there any differences?

Yes, they are that bad.....

By the way, I just downloaded a one month FREE trial of: Cyclops™ Safety Cameras - U.S. & Canada; from the Garmin website, I never had speedcams alerts in my nuvi, since I only drive to the big cities once in a while, so will see how this works...

The following Safety Camera subscriptions are available for download:

• Free, limited-time trial (One Month)
• One-year purchase with updates
• One-time purchase

NOTE: The device used for the Safety Camera subscription must be registered.
Each download can be associated with only one registered device.

1. Click http://my.garmin.com.
2. Log in to your myGarmin account.
3. On the Home page, in the myExtras section, click Subscriptions.
4. Click Safety Camera Subscription.
5. Select an option:

• Click Activate Now to activate a trial subscription.

NOTE: Before activating the trial subscription, ensure that the device used
does not have an active paid subscription and has never had a trial subscription.

• Click Activate Now for the purchased Safety Camera subscription you want to activate.

• Click Get Update for the Safety Camera subscription you want to update. NOTE: Anytime during the one-year time frame that your purchased subscription is active, you can download an update.

6. Connect your device to the computer using a USB cable.
7. On your computer, select the device that will use the subscription.
8. Click Continue.
9. Review the end user license agreement, and click Accept Agreement.

A download confirmation message appears after the data is successfully downloaded to the device.

As folks probably know by now, I'm in favor of red light cameras. If someone runs a red light, they should pay the fine. Lucky they don't cause an accident. People who run into the rear of a stopped vehicle are not paying attention or following too close and also should pay for their foolishness. I don't have a problem with their fund raising capability either. The more scofflaws pay the less I have to pay. I do think the cameras should be subject to regulations that prohibit short yellow times.

No, but given how out-of-date some of Garmin's map information is even on 2010 editions, I doubt very much that their safety camera info will be as good as POI's. And there are lots of changes in safety cameras each year, with some being taken down.

Tuckahoemike wrote "The more scofflaws pay the less I have to pay. I do think the cameras should be subject to regulations that prohibit short yellow times."

The problem is that they are there to raise revenue, not safety so the more revenue they raise, the more the government will spend. The incentives are to shorten the yellow times. Oh, and to deny that's what they (the local authorities or the camera companies) are doing.

While what you would like is fine in theory, the history doesn't support it. For example, accident rates almost always go up at intersections with red light cameras.

Do you trust your elected officials? Do you then also trust the Photo Cams they put there for your "Safety"? If so you are a fool, ask the people in Bell, Kalifornia, lol!

No, the innocent party is the the one who pays for the foolishness of someone who wasn't paying attention. If I'm hit, my car will be in the shop for a week or so, with all the attendant inconvenience and headaches, and repaired cars aren't ever quite the same; meanwhile, the idiot's insurance will pay the cost, and the most they might get is a small rate increase. I also won't get paid for the reduced value of the car (accidents show up in Carfax reports), or trouble that crops up down the road.

Redlight cameras not that all bad. But the way local authorities using it to generate revenues and profit for company running it make it all bad.