new & interesting places for your GPS

Red light cameras purpose: Reduce accidents or increase revenue?

 
--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra
Page 1>>

puts it all into perspective

puts it all into perspective

Looks like they are in it

Looks like they are in it for money to me.

in the name of safety

Red light cameras are definitely revenue generators for the cities in the name of public safety. The operators of these cameras simply manipulate the 'public safety' reasons to their advantages.

RLC Article in Daily Herald

Last Mrk wrote:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306373

This article references the RLC's in the Chicagoland area. They will be running a series of articles all week long on RLC's.

Locally, a guy around here

Locally, a guy around here successfully fought a red light ticket because he proved that the yellow light timer was shortened (compared to the past and to other similar intersections).

Ultimately, I think that red light cameras are a good thing. I'm totally against speed cameras though and I'm glad they were taken away in BC.

--
"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't."

$$$

I would have to say most cities are in it for the money. There was even a line item in the AZ budget for it....courtesy of our new Homeland Security Director.

--
Nuvi 2595 / Nuvi 680 / Nuvi 650

Hogwash

Revenue is 100% based on the number of violations issued. If no one runs the red light, revenue is zero. In fact, our contract has us paying the vendor a significant fee.

Our city revenues have dropped significant after one year of operation of cameras at select intersections. Not insignificantly, the number of accidents and "near hits" have also dropped dramatically. No increase in the rear end collisions (a common fallacy critics like to quote) has been seen.

While we have a "line item" in our budget it does not mean we expect long term income from this safety device. Our hope is that it will eliminate accidents.

Don't run the red light and there is no fine, no income (and no accident!)

Mostly for revenue

dkstl wrote:

Revenue is 100% based on the number of violations issued. If no one runs the red light, revenue is zero. In fact, our contract has us paying the vendor a significant fee.

Our city revenues have dropped significant after one year of operation of cameras at select intersections. Not insignificantly, the number of accidents and "near hits" have also dropped dramatically. No increase in the rear end collisions (a common fallacy critics like to quote) has been seen.

While we have a "line item" in our budget it does not mean we expect long term income from this safety device. Our hope is that it will eliminate accidents.

Don't run the red light and there is no fine, no income (and no accident!)

And I'm sure the reports of municipalities that have been caught tampering with state-mandated minimum times for yellow lights are also "hogwash"? How do "short yellows" increase safety, especially when the "short yellows" are against state (safety) laws?

Or have the red light cameras companies not yet greased enough state lawmakers' palms to change the timing for yellow lights at the state law level to make "short yellows" then legal?

See

  • http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/mar/13/quick-light-leads...

  • http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=49...
  • http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200705...
  • http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=6129121&nav=3w6y
  • http://www.nashvillescene.com/Stories/News/2006/05/11/Yellow...
  • http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_305877...

    By the way, which city and contract are you talking about, dkstl?

  • --
    TomTom One XLS * Contact me about 1200 free print credits *

    It does

    shinbet wrote:

    puts it all into perspective

    Come to a complete stop before turning right, and you don't get a ticket. Your right the Perspective was very easy to see!

    --
    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.

    Pretty Obvious

    Come on folks what is the difference why they are there. We need the extra money from those that don't pay attention or want to put the car in passing gear to not have to wait a couple of minutes. Don't run the red light, come to a complete stop and no worries. I personally feel they help reduce accidents. There are signs warning drivers the intersection is monitored by the cameras. The cameras do not snap a picture unless you actually start through the intersection on a red light. I drive through three intersections a day and so far no problems and they have been there for over two years.

    --
    Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

    After reading that brief

    After reading that brief article I had a great idea.

    If the people who do not like the red light cameras were to do a bit of research and locate the lights with one or two crashes a year and were to have two to four crashes there then we could statisticly show that the red light cameras double crashes.

    --
    Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

    don't care for them, but...

    ...I think they make people think twice about blowing through a red light. Sure, they could be abused for revenue, but I'd like to think that generally that's not done.

    As far as speed cameras, again, I don't like them, but automation does free up the police to handle more important matters.

    Just Curious

    How can a red light camera detect whether a vehicle actually comes to a complete stop before turning right?

    --
    Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone5

    Couldn't agree more

    squirrelproductions wrote:

    And I'm sure the reports of municipalities that have been caught tampering with state-mandated minimum times for yellow lights are also "hogwash"? How do "short yellows" increase safety, especially when the "short yellows" are against state (safety) laws?

    Keep 'em honest, Squirrelproductions! Shortened yellows seem to go hand 'n hand with red light cameras, at least in my experience. I think they are dangerous, and they do increase rear-end accidents. I had two co-workers rear-ended just like that.

    I know that when I see a camera I stop on a dime the instant it changes to yellow because I do not want a ticket, and have almost been hit several times.(My husband got one for the right on red at 5 mph just after the green right turn light turned to a short yellow. [Tuckahoemike, they video taped his and sent us a link to the video. Sure enough, you see him approach the green as it turns to yellow, he slows and you can see him looking left to confirm it is clear as he is rolling, and then go just as it is red.] They won't get another $100 from me.)

    You can also tell it is about revenue in some places by other actions. In Albuquerque, they recently reduced the fines for repeat offenders, due to complaints of the lack of fairness, but kept the first time offender fee the same.

    If it were really about safety, the first offense would be a warning.

    Great

    hkenney wrote:
    squirrelproductions wrote:

    And I'm sure the reports of municipalities that have been caught tampering with state-mandated minimum times for yellow lights are also "hogwash"? How do "short yellows" increase safety, especially when the "short yellows" are against state (safety) laws?

    Keep 'em honest, Squirrelproductions! Shortened yellows seem to go hand 'n hand with red light cameras, at least in my experience. I think they are dangerous, and they do increase rear-end accidents. I had two co-workers rear-ended just like that.

    I know that when I see a camera I stop on a dime the instant it changes to yellow because I do not want a ticket, and have almost been hit several times.(My husband got one for the right on red at 5 mph just after the green right turn light turned to a short yellow. [Tuckahoemike, they video taped his and sent us a link to the video. Sure enough, you see him approach the green as it turns to yellow, he slows and you can see him looking left to confirm it is clear as he is rolling, and then go just as it is red.] They won't get another $100 from me.)

    You can also tell it is about revenue in some places by other actions. In Albuquerque, they recently reduced the fines for repeat offenders, due to complaints of the lack of fairness, but kept the first time offender fee the same.

    If it were really about safety, the first offense would be a warning.

    Just what we need is everyone that has not been ticketed before, running red lights and hoping they don't get caught...Then they can continue to do it until they get caught. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that doesn't make sense...go to this website...

    http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

    --
    Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

    Follow up: Illinois city turns off red light cameras.

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306415&src=1

    City officials find that the cameras offer "no safety benefit."

    Interesting stuff.

    Did not need

    Of course there are intersections that don't need the cameras. They should only be installed where it is deemed to be a problem...they can't install them at every intersection...Maybe they need portable ones they can move around....LOL

    --
    Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

    comment in NY leaves..

    little doubt that they are soley for raising revenue. NY State recently passed a law allowing red light cameras in the Cities of Rochester and Yonkers. When 1 of the bill's Assembly sponsors was asked why Rochester was authorized for 50 while Yonkers was only getting 25; his answer was that with the heavier traffic in Yonkers they would be able to generate as much revenue with 25 as Rochester could with 50. The issue of safety wasn't even a passing thought. The quote was published in the Journal News several months ago.

    Another Article In This Series

    This related article points out that there are a lot of cameras in Illinois that have only 1 or 2 POSSIBLY red light related accidents per year. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306485

    The camera in the photo on this page is about 100 yards from another one. They are both intersections with low accident rates. They monitor traffic turning right on Northbound Rohlwing Rd, then the same traffic turning right onto the ramp to 290. This is a heavily traveled path in the morning.

    Ticket

    edwardw66 wrote:

    This related article points out that there are a lot of cameras in Illinois that have only 1 or 2 POSSIBLY red light related accidents per year. http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=306485

    The camera in the photo on this page is about 100 yards from another one. They are both intersections with low accident rates. They monitor traffic turning right on Northbound Rohlwing Rd, then the same traffic turning right onto the ramp to 290. This is a heavily traveled path in the morning.

    If you don't stop at a red light .... You get a ticket PERIOD!!!! It shouldn't matter if you are turning right or not....If there was an officer there and saw it should he not give you a ticket???? Why can't you go straight through a red light if there are no other cars near the intersection. I don't understand why it is so difficult to come to a complete stop at a red light.. Should you not have to stop at a stop sign before turning right???

    --
    Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

    Revenue Stream

    With a police officer present, it is HIS discression if you stopped long enough or if he wants to give you a ticket. With the camera, there is no input from a human being.

    That said, it is just a revenue stream.

    Stopping

    rustyfan wrote:

    With a police officer present, it is HIS discression if you stopped long enough or if he wants to give you a ticket. With the camera, there is no input from a human being.

    That said, it is just a revenue stream.

    So what you are saying is you shouldn't have to come to a complete stop?? I didn't know you could do that...I thought you always had to come to a complete stop on a red light or stop sign...Better than raising everyones taxes.....

    --
    Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

    Of course

    Of course it is in for the money but disguised as public safety for obvious political reason. Dallas is planning to cut 1/4 of the red light cameras because the revenue was way down for those lights. I do not see public safety was the agenda. wink

    Agree

    jeffH70 wrote:

    Of course it is in for the money but disguised as public safety for obvious political reason. Dallas is planning to cut 1/4 of the red light cameras because the revenue was way down for those lights. I do not see public safety was the agenda. wink

    Wow - I was going to write the exact same thing. I live in Ft Worth and just saw that they planned to cut operation on many Dallas cameras because they weren't generating income (but still costing the city money to run them).

    If they were such safety measures they would have left them up.......

    Uhhhhh....

    dkstl wrote:

    No increase in the rear end collisions (a common fallacy critics like to quote) has been seen.

    Interesting statement. I have personally been the receipient of a rear end collision induced by a red light camera. The person in front of me locked their brakes up on a 45 MPH road as soon as the light went to yellow eventhough they would have easily made it through the intersection w/o getting ticketed. I have performance brakes so I had no problem stopping in time, however, the person behind me hit me.

    So the real truth of the

    So the real truth of the matter here is that the person that hit you was following too close. That is the real and only cause for that rear end collision.

    --
    Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

    sorry to hear you were a victim

    j.squared wrote:
    dkstl wrote:

    No increase in the rear end collisions (a common fallacy critics like to quote) has been seen.

    ... I had no problem stopping in time, however, the person behind me hit me.

    Since it happened outside of an intersection it didn't happen. At least not statistically.
    I'm sure that makes your neck feel a lot better. Sorry to hear about the collision.

    Hogwash!

    dkstl wrote:

    Revenue is 100% based on the number of violations issued. If no one runs the red light, revenue is zero. In fact, our contract has us paying the vendor a significant fee.

    Our city revenues have dropped significant after one year of operation of cameras at select intersections. Not insignificantly, the number of accidents and "near hits" have also dropped dramatically. No increase in the rear end collisions (a common fallacy critics like to quote) has been seen.

    While we have a "line item" in our budget it does not mean we expect long term income from this safety device. Our hope is that it will eliminate accidents.

    Don't run the red light and there is no fine, no income (and no accident!)

    Your title says it all. By the way what flavor is the Kool Aid they serve?

    --
    If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there.

    One can always make that excuse

    onestep wrote:

    So the real truth of the matter here is that the person that hit you was following too close. That is the real and only cause for that rear end collision.

    * He SHOULD have anticipated the light turning yellow.
    * He SHOULD have anticipated the first car might lock them up.
    * He SHOULD have known the car ahead of him had superior brakes and the driver superior reflexes, or at least SHOULD have allowed for the probability.
    * He SHOULD have known the brakes on his vehicle were not up snuff in an emergency maneuver (even though he has never executed one yet).
    * He SHOULD have noticed the accumulated oil on the roadway that would lengthen stopping distance.
    * He SHOULD have known that a group of bikers on the way to a "rally" in their Harleys were stopped at the light and "marked their place" 15 minutes previously.
    * He SHOULD have known there was a microburst in the area 30 minutes ago and the oil in the pavement was raised.
    * He SHOULD have known that his left rear brake hose was not up to snuff of a panic stop. So when he hit the brakes it ruptured giving him only 25% braking effort.
    * As a truck driver, he SHOULD have known the load would shift.
    * As a person using a cell phone he SHOULD have known it would ring right at that instant and would distract him.

    Yep he SHOULD have known ALL of this and in a perfect world the collision would never had taken place.

    Answered.

    I can see you are emotionally attached to this issue but please read my answers and think about them rationally.

    trip_to_nowhere wrote:

    * He SHOULD have anticipated the light turning yellow.
    1.You don't pay attention to traffic signals as you approach them in anticipation of their changing?

    * He SHOULD have anticipated the first car might lock them up.
    2.If you can not stop to avoid a collision at any time you are too close.

    * He SHOULD have known the car ahead of him had superior brakes and the driver superior reflexes, or at least SHOULD have allowed for the probability.
    3.See leaving proper spacing in answer 2.

    * He SHOULD have known the brakes on his vehicle were not up snuff in an emergency maneuver (even though he has never executed one yet).
    4.If you do not know the conditions of your vehicle then it should not be on the road, see your local/state vehile laws pertaining to proper vehicle condition.

    * He SHOULD have noticed the accumulated oil on the roadway that would lengthen stopping distance.
    5.See answer 2 again.

    * He SHOULD have known that a group of bikers on the way to a "rally" in their Harleys were stopped at the light and "marked their place" 15 minutes previously.
    6.See answer 2 again. You are responceble for knowing the conditions of the roadway.

    * He SHOULD have known there was a microburst in the area 30 minutes ago and the oil in the pavement was raised.
    7.See answer 6. Should have been paying attention and noticed the wet and shiny road instead of been fiddling with his gps.

    * He SHOULD have known that his left rear brake hose was not up to snuff of a panic stop. So when he hit the brakes it ruptured giving him only 25% braking effort.
    8.See answer 4.

    * As a truck driver, he SHOULD have known the load would shift.
    9.Laws pertaining to CDL drivers state they are respoceble for the proper securing of the load, if it shifts it is his fault.

    * As a person using a cell phone he SHOULD have known it would ring right at that instant and would distract him.
    10.Cell phones should not be used by drivers. If one rings I would hope they (drivers) would not let their attention be drawin away from their job of driving, paying attention.

    Yep he SHOULD have known ALL of this and in a perfect world the collision would never had taken place.
    This is all within the realm of the responsabilities of all drivers out there. If you can not meet these demands please stay off the public roads.

    --
    Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

    I think 'following too close' is an excuse...

    onestep wrote:

    I can see you are emotionally attached to this issue but please read my answers and think about them rationally.

    trip_to_nowhere wrote:

    * He SHOULD have anticipated the light turning yellow.
    1.You don't pay attention to traffic signals as you approach them in anticipation of their changing?

    * He SHOULD have anticipated the first car might lock them up.
    2.If you can not stop to avoid a collision at any time you are too close.
    ...
    10.Cell phones should not be used by drivers. If one rings I would hope they (drivers) would not let their attention be drawin away from their job of driving, paying attention.

    Yep he SHOULD have known ALL of this and in a perfect world the collision would never had taken place.
    This is all within the realm of the responsabilities of all drivers out there. If you can not meet these demands please stay off the public roads.

    We can easily say if you are not a perfect driver and if you don't know everything, you should stay off the road, but let's be realistic. If you notice there is something wrong with your vehicle, you take it in. Otherwise, you don't. Also, if it is a company vehicle, or a rental, or even a friend/family member's vehicle, you don't take it in for an inspection before you drive it.

    Cell phones are part of driving, just like people eating, smoking, watching their kids in the back seat, changing clothes, radios, passengers, etc. You can blame the cell, but it could have just as easily been a billboard ad.

    Finally, I don't know what part of the country you live in, but if I allowed enough space for all of those possibilities, another car would cut in front of me and that space would not be there anyway. Heck, if there is 15' in front of me, someone cuts in. (Last year someone actually pulled up next to me and just cut over knowing I was there thinking I would just slam on the brakes. I didn't and he hit me.)

    We can all say that he should have allowed more space, but the reality is that the road is too crowded to do so. If the yellows were an appropriate length, and if drivers could count on it, it would not be a problem. When you are driving the speed limit and there is not enough time to stop when the light turn yellow (as I stated in my earlier post) before 'running' the red (not sure what the reply post was getting at) there is a problem.

    it's all about the Benjamins

    Check this article about proposed speed cameras in Ct., they didn't even try to make it about safety:
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2206.asp

    Not so sure...

    farrissr wrote:
    hkenney wrote:

    If it were really about safety, the first offense would be a warning.

    Just what we need is everyone that has not been ticketed before, running red lights and hoping they don't get caught...Then they can continue to do it until they get caught. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that doesn't make sense...go to this website...

    http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

    Oh ya, because everyone who has not gotten a ticket breaks every law until they get caught...?? People would not just run lights if the first was a warning. Also, I am not to sure about the site you listed. It says:

    1 What is red light running?

    A violation occurs when a motorist enters an intersection some time after the signal light has turned red. Motorists inadvertently in an intersection when the signal changes to red (waiting to turn left, for example) are not red light runners.

    This is clearly not true. If you are in the intersection to turn left and it turns red, you get a ticket. You are not allowed to enter the intersection to turn left until/unless it is clear.

    Also point 5 about a 'grace period' of 1/2 a second is not true. As my husband turned, he looked left as he was approaching the green, and while he was looking left the 2 sec yellow popped up. Then his front wheels were pasted the stop line as it turned red (which he did not see as he was looking left) and he got a ticket. There is NO grace period.

    If you are the perfect driver, more power to you. If you have ever changed lanes without signaling, turned without signaling, went 1 mph over the speed limit, or committed any other traffic infraction, then you deserve a ticket as much as any of the people you are so quick to dismiss.

    Not so sure...

    State laws vary, I can only relate to you my experience of twenty years of law enforcement in Kalif.

    Legal definition of a yellow light: A warning that the light is about to turn red. There are also traffic engineering studies that state how long the yellow must on before the red light.

    If a vehicle is lawfully in an intersection (as in making a left turn), and the light turns red, you are not in violation of the law. All other traffic must not proceed until it is safe to do so (intersection clears).

    By the way, I have not received any citations in 45 years of driving. And some of the traffic stuff may have changed since I retired 16 years ago.

    I now live in a state that has no traffic cameras. And if they were to get a camera, I would move to a state that had none.
    It's not about "Safety" it's about the money.

    --
    If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there.

    BOTH

    Anyone with common sense can figure out the reason for any traffic cameras, especially red light. It's both. Revenue and Safety.

    I think red light cameras has more safety implications than speed cameras because opposing traffic will go on the green.

    Bottom line....if you say its ONLY about safety - you are a politician or in public safety. If you say its only about money - you have bad driving habits you are trying to justify.

    Just think, really....revenue. If NOBODY went thru a red light or exceeded the speed limit, would we need the cameras?? So make the government go broke! I've not given them any of my money for bad driving, nor will I. Because...I won't drive badly. I'd rather the government get revenue from the moron drivers than taxing every citizen to make their money.

    No

    onestep wrote:

    So the real truth of the matter here is that the person that hit you was following too close. That is the real and only cause for that rear end collision.

    The real reason for the accident was that the first person in the chain was so paranoid about getting a ticket at that intersection and was so mistrustful of the intersection's yellow light timing that he slammed on his brakes in a panic stop the instant the yellow light came on.

    This is not something normal drivers do at unequipped intersections.

    Had there been no indication that there was an RLC and if the administration set yellow dwell times the same for equipped intersections as they do for unequipped ones I will almost guarantee that the accident in question would not have happened. The key is consistency. If ALL red lights had the same yellow timing, no one would need to try and deal with what administrators do at one light, compared to another.

    It is the presence of the camera that instigated the accident. This is borne out by historical data - and I wonder if the statistics might not be skewed because during the evaluation periods the yellow dwell times might not have been shortened.

    Read some of the reports. It is interesting stuff.

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

    for NYC, both Safety AND Money

    With only 3 seconds for the yellow light, it's got to be for money. But then again, the cameras do deter people who try to beat the red light.
    twisted

    --
    vvitug

    Were you a witness?

    bramfrank wrote:
    onestep wrote:

    So the real truth of the matter here is that the person that hit you was following too close. That is the real and only cause for that rear end collision.

    The real reason for the accident was that the first person in the chain was so paranoid about getting a ticket at that intersection and was so mistrustful of the intersection's yellow light timing that he slammed on his brakes in a panic stop the instant the yellow light came on.

    You make this statement as if you were a witness to the accident. You weren't there, so you don't know if this was the situation or not. Your dislike of cameras clouds your viewpoint to where you have to ASSUME what you percieve without any access to the facts is the truth.

    --
    ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

    both...

    I feel that a strong argument could be made for both.

    The law.

    bramfrank wrote:

    The real reason for the accident was that the first person in the chain was so paranoid about getting a ticket at that intersection and was so mistrustful of the intersection's yellow light timing that he slammed on his brakes in a panic stop the instant the yellow light came on.

    Well I did read the following from the Michigan What Every Driver Must Know Handbook (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/wedmk_16312_7.pdf).

    Controlling Your Speed
    Michigan’s Basic Speed Law means you must drive at a
    “careful and prudent” speed in all driving conditions. You must drive at a speed that always allows you to stop within the clear distance ahead. This speed is never faster than the posted speed
    limit. Depending on conditions, it may be slower than the posted speed limit. Anticipate trouble ahead. Be ready to stop safely.

    --
    Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

    So . . . . .

    a_user wrote:

    You make this statement as if you were a witness to the accident. You weren't there, so you don't know if this was the situation or not. Your dislike of cameras clouds your viewpoint to where you have to ASSUME what you percieve without any access to the facts is the truth.

    Read the reports and studies. There are dozens of them available on line. The incidence of rear end collisions go up literally everywhere red light cameras are introduced.

    Whether I assume or not, the reality is that there were fewer rear-enders BEFORE the cameras were installed and NOW there are MORE.

    Do you have a better explanation than the fact that the people in front are stopping harder than the ones following? Because if they weren't, there wouldn't be any contact.

    Would you have us believe that RLCs cause people to drive closer to each other than they would otherwise?

    I DO know that here in Quebec there are now traffic jams where the RLCs were turned on (for the first time at the beginning of July). Now, would that be becauise people drive as they always did? Of course not.

    And, with documented proof that many jurisdictions rig their lighting to make it easier to 'break' the law, would you have us believe that timid drivers are emboldened to enter intersections once the yellow light comes on?

    I have no doubt that if everyone maintained an unoccupied space equal to 5 car lengths between between themselves and the car in front of them there would be fewer rear-end collisions.

    But the reality is that if you tried to do that then people would simply move in front of you.

    And, since the only factor that changed was that the affected intersections have RLCs, what else do you think causes this type of accident to increase in frequency at those intersections?

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

    I guarantee it is just a

    I guarantee it is just a revenue stream. Too many incidents of yellow light tampering to "catch" violators.

    Could care less

    what their purpose is, if they save one life they're worth it.

    --
    Nuvi 360, OS X Lion 10.7

    Good point.

    bramfrank wrote:

    I have no doubt that if everyone maintained an unoccupied space equal to 5 car lengths between between themselves and the car in front of them there would be fewer rear-end collisions.

    But the reality is that if you tried to do that then people would simply move in front of you.

    This is a good point. It happens to me every time I try to keep a safe distance from the car ahead of me, causing me to slow even further to re-establish the distance. Very frustrating, but the only alternative is to close the distance.

    --
    Alan - Nuvi 3597LMTHD, Oregon 550T, Nuvi 855, Nuvi 755T, Lowrance Endura Sierra

    Speed

    The distance between cars would depend on the speed you are traveling. I remember beeing tought in driving school to leave 2 seconds between cars. That way you always have the same amount of time to react. I don't remember ever needing more that 3 car lengths though.

    --
    Magellan Maestro 4250, T-Mobile G1 with Google Maps, iPaq with TomTom, and a Tapwave Zodiac with TomTom and Mapopolis

    The point remains the same...

    bramfrank wrote:

    Read the reports and studies. There are dozens of them available on line. The incidence of rear end collisions go up literally everywhere red light cameras are introduced.

    Whether I assume or not, the reality is that there were fewer rear-enders BEFORE the cameras were installed and NOW there are MORE.

    Do you have a better explanation than the fact that the people in front are stopping harder than the ones following? Because if they weren't, there wouldn't be any contact.

    Would you have us believe that RLCs cause people to drive closer to each other than they would otherwise?

    I DO know that here in Quebec there are now traffic jams where the RLCs were turned on (for the first time at the beginning of July). Now, would that be becauise people drive as they always did? Of course not.

    And, with documented proof that many jurisdictions rig their lighting to make it easier to 'break' the law, would you have us believe that timid drivers are emboldened to enter intersections once the yellow light comes on?

    I have no doubt that if everyone maintained an unoccupied space equal to 5 car lengths between between themselves and the car in front of them there would be fewer rear-end collisions.

    But the reality is that if you tried to do that then people would simply move in front of you.

    And, since the only factor that changed was that the affected intersections have RLCs, what else do you think causes this type of accident to increase in frequency at those intersections?

    Your knowledge is not based on actual observations, but on published reports. As you do not have the necessary experience or training to make what would be admissable in court as a learned observation, your information has to be considered as either hear-say or anecdotal.

    Yes, I have read the studies and have analyzed some of them as part of my duties. The fact remains a rear-end accident is caused by one of two factors, the first being the failure on the part of the driver being hit to signal their intention. The second reason is always the following driver and the one at fault failed to leave sufficient space between the vehicles to bring the vehicle to a stop. In layman's terms, that's "following too closely" which is a habit into which too many drivers have lapsed. Of course, there is always the instance where the at-fault driver was distracted, but again that is the fault of the driver and not the camera.

    Over the past 20 or 30 years the mentality of people is to assume they are a victim and a refusal to accept responsibility for their actions.

    As to the cameras being a revenue stream, they are. It is proven through historical evidence that as revenue received by a governmental entity declines from its traditional sources, traffic enforcement is enhanced as a means to restore the funding levels. The mitigating factor is that it is not the careful driver that is penalized by cameras, it is those that make an assumption they are above the law and it is not necessary to come to a full and complete stop before turning on red when permitted or feel their business is so important they have to speed "to make the light" because they failed to allow enough time to make an appointment. Which group do you fall under?

    --
    ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

    I bow humbly . . . but;

    Aside from the fact that I am trained as an engineer and certainly do not need to be standing on the street corner to verify reports prepared by other engineers, how would you explain that rear-end collision rates are much higher at RLC-equipped intersections than at virtually every other type of intersection, other factors being equal?

    How do you explain that the REPORTED rear-end collision rate increases when an RLC is installed at an intersection? (The minor rate probably increases exponentially, but no one bothers to report minor damage-free contact - THAT's anecdotal).

    Also; How does one signal his intent to slam on his brakes?

    I ask because I HAVE observed MANY drivers who respond to yellow lights at controlled intersections by stomping on their brakes and being unreasonably cautious when resuming movement - as a motorcycle rider, observation of the environment is mandatory if I want to continue to make it home safely.

    Note that this caution is not to avoid red light runners, but to avopid getting tagged by the camera. So the reality is that for the driver it is also not about safety - besides, they don't tend to put RLCs on all 4 corners of an intersection; Only the one where they're likely to make the most money.

    I continue to believe that if this was a safety issue, it could likely be resolved at least as well and without increasing the rear-end collision rate by extending the yellow dwell time and overlapping the red period.

    But it simply is not about safety.

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

    RED Light Camera

    Mostly in it for the money. I would like to see some stats on how many accidents are caused by people slamming on their brakes when they realize the camera is there.

    exactly...

    salleentn wrote:

    Mostly in it for the money. I would like to see some stats on how many accidents are caused by people slamming on their brakes when they realize the camera is there.

    No stats, because it may prove they only revenue generators.

    --
    vk

    There's lots of stuff out there . . .

    www.motorists.org is a site dedicated to demystifying this type of issue (among others). They have an interesting synopsis and distillation of several reports available on line for your reading pleasure.

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

    You can move to other resources, easily located using Google.

    As to being about revenue, you don't need reports; Mayors of several towns have commented on how profitable RLCs and Speed Cams are; And, where they don't generate enough revenue, they are removed. What more proof could you need?

    Up here in Quebec, the statistics for the government's intersection selections simply made no sense at all - very few incidents beyond people driving too fast; Driving too fast is simply an indication that the speed limit is set too low.

    --
    Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T
    Page 1>>

    sponsored links