Huntington Beach rejects red-light cameras

 

(Article from LA Times, hopefully a growing trend)

At a time when red-light cameras are proliferating across Southern California, Huntington Beach is bucking the trend.

The cameras have become controversial in recent years, taking photos of drivers who run red lights, with the proof -- and the ticket -- arriving in the mail. Backers say the cameras improve safety and bring cities needed revenues.

But Ken Small, Surf City's police chief, isn't so sure.

He told the Huntington Beach City Council this week that adding cameras at intersections around the city could increase the number of rear-end accidents. And, he noted, the revenue from the red-light devices would not even be enough to pay for the cameras.

--
“It’s their world. We’re just living in it.”

A friendly remark to rear end accidents!

e_piph_a_ny wrote:

(Article from LA Times, hopefully a growing trend)

At a time when red-light cameras are proliferating across Southern California, Huntington Beach is bucking the trend.

The cameras have become controversial in recent years, taking photos of drivers who run red lights, with the proof -- and the ticket -- arriving in the mail. Backers say the cameras improve safety and bring cities needed revenues.

But Ken Small, Surf City's police chief, isn't so sure.

He told the Huntington Beach City Council this week that adding cameras at intersections around the city could increase the number of rear-end accidents. And, he noted, the revenue from the red-light devices would not even be enough to pay for the cameras.

Rear end accidents can only happen IF the distance between the two cars involved is too short!!

It's that simple! wink

--
Nüvi 765T, Nüvi 1390T, Nüvi 2559 and 2695 LMT, GPS12, GPS18 (used in nRoute and Oziexplorer on laptop), GPSmap76CSx, SonyEricsson X1 (For OziExplorer CE maps)

Driving in Cali

geske wrote:

Rear end accidents can only happen IF the distance between the two cars involved is too short!!

It's that simple! wink

If you've ever driven in Cali, it's more the norm than not!

--
“It’s their world. We’re just living in it.”

That is not the issue

geske wrote:

Rear end accidents can only happen IF the distance between the two cars involved is too short!!

It's that simple! wink

The issue is not whether the drivers are more to blame than the lights -- the issue that Ken Small was making was that rear end collisions tend to rise from people slamming on their brakes unexpectedly and for no good reason.

--
Nuvi 660 -- and not upgrading it or maps until Garmin fixes long-standing bugs/problems, and get maps to where they are much more current, AND corrected on a more timely basis when advised of mistakes.

Red for both directions

bentbiker wrote:
geske wrote:

Rear end accidents can only happen IF the distance between the two cars involved is too short!!

It's that simple! wink

The issue is not whether the drivers are more to blame than the lights -- the issue that Ken Small was making was that rear end collisions tend to rise from people slamming on their brakes unexpectedly and for no good reason.

I'm not sure that stopping for a red light isn't a 'good reason'.

However red light cameras are probably not all THAT bad, so long as they don't mess with the parameters of the traffic lights (like shortening the yellow dwell time) to maximise revenue

But the best thing from a safety perspective is likely to program a longer yellow period and also an overlap of perhaps 2 seconds between the changes when ALL flows have red lights to allow late-runners to get through before granting the next stream access to the intersection.

But it isn't about safety.

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

.

bramfrank wrote:
bentbiker wrote:

The issue is not whether the drivers are more to blame than the lights -- the issue that Ken Small was making was that rear end collisions tend to rise from people slamming on their brakes unexpectedly and for no good reason.

I'm not sure that stopping for a red light isn't a 'good reason'.

I can't tell if you are joking. The problem is not those people who decide to stop for a red light -- it's the people who, as I said, "slam on their brakes unexpectedly and for no good reason" -- like at a green light with a sign warning of a camera. People do dumb things when threatened with a $400 fine; see the recent saga about people slowing to 20 mph below the speed limit when a camera van is in place.

--
Nuvi 660 -- and not upgrading it or maps until Garmin fixes long-standing bugs/problems, and get maps to where they are much more current, AND corrected on a more timely basis when advised of mistakes.

!?!

wink

bentbiker wrote:
geske wrote:

Rear end accidents can only happen IF the distance between the two cars involved is too short!!

It's that simple! wink

The issue is not whether the drivers are more to blame than the lights -- the issue that Ken Small was making was that rear end collisions tend to rise from people slamming on their brakes unexpectedly and for no good reason.

I don't understand your argument! You should always be prepared to keep a safe distance, no matter what the reason is for stopping your car. It includes stupid drivings from others!

It's that simple

--
Nüvi 765T, Nüvi 1390T, Nüvi 2559 and 2695 LMT, GPS12, GPS18 (used in nRoute and Oziexplorer on laptop), GPSmap76CSx, SonyEricsson X1 (For OziExplorer CE maps)

you have your own agenda

geske wrote:

wink
I don't understand your argument! You should always be prepared to keep a safe distance, no matter what the reason is for stopping your car. It includes stupid drivings from others!

It's that simple

The point that you are arguing is simple (fault/liability on the part of the trailing car), but that was never the point. The point is that rear end collisions often increase at redlight cameras and not everybody thinks that is a good thing.

And, just like Finger Eleven says in First Time:
It's not that simple, it's not that simple
It's never that simple

--
Nuvi 660 -- and not upgrading it or maps until Garmin fixes long-standing bugs/problems, and get maps to where they are much more current, AND corrected on a more timely basis when advised of mistakes.

A friendly remark!

bentbiker wrote:
geske wrote:

wink
I don't understand your argument! You should always be prepared to keep a safe distance, no matter what the reason is for stopping your car. It includes stupid drivings from others!

It's that simple

The point that you are arguing is simple (fault/liability on the part of the trailing car), but that was never the point. The point is that rear end collisions often increase at redlight cameras and not everybody thinks that is a good thing.

And, just like Finger Eleven says in First Time:
It's not that simple, it's not that simple
It's never that simple

The focal point for me is avoiding speeding in order to avoid....
It seems to me the discussions is MOSTLY concerned about the camera as the sole cause for accidents.
We don't disagree on the way some drivers react: being the cause of accidents due to their reaction. It is obvious.
The problem, in my oppinion, is not the red light camera, the problem is the drivers reaction.
OK, in order to avoid the consequences I recommend drivers to include other drivers behaviour.
A child running out in front of a car would have the same consequences. It is a problem having children run out in front of a car. In stead of ONLY focusing on the child, I suggest to also focus on the driver. But maybe this is not the focus on this site?

It's that simple! wink

Or maybe it's not that simple: Please come up with some other ideas to prevent speeding, especially in rural areas. There might be a lot other good ideas, but traffic cameras is one good option.

--
Nüvi 765T, Nüvi 1390T, Nüvi 2559 and 2695 LMT, GPS12, GPS18 (used in nRoute and Oziexplorer on laptop), GPSmap76CSx, SonyEricsson X1 (For OziExplorer CE maps)

when will it stop

I can't belive in this day and time the way people think.

Chief Small needs to rally his forces

e_piph_a_ny wrote:

(Article from LA Times, hopefully a growing trend)

At a time when red-light cameras are proliferating across Southern California, Huntington Beach is bucking the trend.

[clip]

But Ken Small, Surf City's police chief, isn't so sure.

He told the Huntington Beach City Council this week that adding cameras at intersections around the city could increase the number of rear-end accidents. And, he noted, the revenue from the red-light devices would not even be enough to pay for the cameras.

Chief Small needs to rally his forces, and start writing tickets for tailgating and that would solve that problem, a safe driving distance and paying attention to the road, is all it takes to over come rear-end collisions.

The camera's will surprise you, on how fast they bring a renegade intersection under control. then continue to make money because of people that believe they are above the law, or don't understand why they have to come to a complete stop on red or slow down to the posted speed.

Now the person that makes sense on this matter, rather than the out of focus chief is Mayor Keith Bohr.

"It's not very welcoming," Bohr said. He said he would rather have a tourist leave town with pleasant memories and a strong desire to return than go home to a $400 red-light ticket in the mailbox.

Now theres a man that tells it like it is!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

It's never that simple, Oh sure it is!

bentbiker wrote:

The point that you are arguing is simple (fault/liability on the part of the trailing car), but that was never the point. The point is that rear end collisions often increase at redlight cameras and not everybody thinks that is a good thing.

And, just like Finger Eleven says in First Time:
It's not that simple, it's not that simple
It's never that simple

If the person wasn't tailgating it wouldn't matter if there was a camera on the intersection or not.

So actually it is that simple, you rear end someone your almost always going to get a ticket for not having your vehicle under control or reckless operation.

You have a legal duty to leave enough distance between you and the car in front of you to stop in time to avoid a collision, no matter what the car in front of you does. The only exception I'm aware of for the rear-end rule is when a car makes an illegal lane change into your lane and then stops suddenly. So it's not "automatic" but it is pretty close to it.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Costly

One report I saw said it costs $6000/month per camera times four cameras per intersection. They just weren't making enough money to justify $24000/mo especially when California is short on cash. They are trying to find ways to save some cash.

Good for Huntington Beach

im so sick of these nazi cameras springing up all over the place.

this country is turning into a complete police state.

--
DriveSmart 50, DriveSmart 60, nuvi 2595, nuvi 3760,

Yes, And

slobeavis wrote:

One report I saw said it costs $6000/month per camera times four cameras per intersection.

That was PER MONITORED LANE, so it would be 2-3 times that.

--
Nuvi 660 -- and not upgrading it or maps until Garmin fixes long-standing bugs/problems, and get maps to where they are much more current, AND corrected on a more timely basis when advised of mistakes.

You are right!

bentbiker wrote:
slobeavis wrote:

One report I saw said it costs $6000/month per camera times four cameras per intersection.

That was PER MONITORED LANE, so it would be 2-3 times that.

It's expensive to monitor cars exceeding the speed limits! wink

--
Nüvi 765T, Nüvi 1390T, Nüvi 2559 and 2695 LMT, GPS12, GPS18 (used in nRoute and Oziexplorer on laptop), GPSmap76CSx, SonyEricsson X1 (For OziExplorer CE maps)

..

bentbiker wrote:
bramfrank wrote:

I'm not sure that stopping for a red light isn't a 'good reason'.

I can't tell if you are joking. The problem is not those people who decide to stop for a red light -- it's the people who, as I said, "slam on their brakes unexpectedly and for no good reason" -- like at a green light with a sign warning of a camera. People do dumb things when threatened with a $400 fine; see the recent saga about people slowing to 20 mph below the speed limit when a camera van is in place.

Ya missed the fact that it was a double negative.

Having said that I had the pleasure of spending a half hour yesterday (Saturday) sitting in traffic on a 4 lane road just outside of Montreal. I ride that road almost every week-end during the riding season on my out of town and have never experienced traffic tie-ups there.

So why was traffic backed up?

Was it an accident? Perhaps there was constuction? A breakdown perhaps?

Nope.

A new red light camera.

Thousands of drivers, all paranoid about getting a ticket, all coming to a careful and complete stop at the red light. perhaps rubberecking; looking for the hardware, I presume.

I'm not sure, but perhaps they adjusted the light timing? Perhaps people were just being paranoid, because when the light was green, everyone moved. Yet the road was completely clear after that intersection.

The reality is that we now had hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of extra reasons for fender-benders for all of the stops and starts, not to mention the horrendous amount of wasted energy and the wear and tear on the vehicles.

For what?

Here are the intersection specifications:

- 58,000 cars per day on average
- 26 accidents per year on average (does not specify if it was for the controlled direction only or what)
- slightly fewer than 7 of those accidents invoved injury (on average, of course)
- 21% of those accidents involved cars turning
- It is 'difficult' to police the intersection

Those are the details as published by the government; Seems not to justify the expense to me.

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

Glad I learned this today! Geez

nansoutey wrote:

im so sick of these nazi cameras springing up all over the place.

this country is turning into a complete police state.

Wow
Look at that, you learn something new at the POI-Factory every day. I would have never figured Hitler used enforcement cameras as he marched through Europe.

Just slow down and when you see yellow, start your stop,because that doesn't mean go faster to try to beat it. then the Nazi cameras won't even bother with you!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.