Los Angeles Red Light Cameras: Accidents up, city council investigating.

I don't know about you guys but when I get up to a camera intersection....and the light is green I give it a bit gas to clear the line.

Sometimes I can get a clue where the light is by watching the pedestrian lamp...but if if get up there without an idea how long the light has been green it seems best to blast through to avoid a ticket.

I am sure that sort of avoidance behaviour will increase accidents.

These cameras are in no way shape or form about safety.

I was about to post this news but steevo is quicker than me.

schwert,
You've just described my driving habit near RLC intersections

I wonder how long it will it take in LA or some other city, for someone to die in a rear-end collision at an intersection with a RLC and the city's own data showing an increase in accidents at that intersection after the cameras were installed is introduced as evidence?

I'd say it's just a matter of time.

The interview with the driver that was rear-ended at an intersection shows the tendency of people to no longer take responsibility for their actions. He stopped, the driver behind him made a conscious decision to try to beat the light and "it was the camera's fault." That accident probably would have happened at any signalized intersection under the same conditions - camera or not.

As to the "figures don't lie", well the other half to the maxim is "liars figure." The problem with statistics is it all depends on what you are measuring. If LAPD was measuring serious - as in injury or total destruction of a vehicle - accidents and the TV station measures total accidents, there will be a difference. One could and probably did decrease - the number of serious accidents - while the number of minor - rear-end type - probably increased so the total amount of accidents increased, but the severity decreased.

Of course, if you are involved in one of those minor accidents, then as far as you are concerned "it's the camera's fault."

Cameras don't cause accidents....People do!!!!

I'm guessing that neither a_user and farrissr are not lawyers. I'm not either...

But I do know that when lawsuits are involved the first thing you do is sue everyone and anyone that might in some way be involved and has money.

Not that I'm advocating that, but that is the way it is.

So you contribute it to human error? According to the following source (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/accidents/road_accidents.ht...) human error is the sole cause of 57% of all accidents and was contributory in over 90% of accidents.

However, consider the following situation.

Say you were driving at the posted speed limit of 35mph and the car immediately in front of you skidded to a stop to avoid the redlight and you collided into it. Who's at fault?

It seems to me to be a design error in that the posted speed limit should be adjusted lower to account for the possibility of having to stop sooner. Or, perhaps install a flashing indicator of a redlight intersection to warn the incoming traffic of the potential for sudden braking. I mean if you're going to go all out for public safety doesn't it make sense to perfect the design?

But I definitely agree wit ya on breaking down the statistics.

Was the driver following at the proper distance from the car ahead? Was the driver being distracted at the time?

If you hit someone from behind you are at fault PERIOD whether you think it was your fault or not. You don't rush up behind someone before a stoplight period...knowing what's going on while driving is a must.

A quick check on this will reveal plenty of examples that this isn't always true.

Being an ex-police officer, I will say that 99 out of 100 times this is true. (Usually charged as assured clear distance.) However, there can always be extenuating circumstances where the person rear-ending another vehicle may not be cited. Personally, I am not a great lover of red light cameras. They may serve a safety purpose but for the most part, I believe, they are used to generate revenue. I still believe that unless a uniformed police officer cites you, a citation based on a photograph and sent through the mail is not valid. However, I know there are people who will disagree with me on this as some of the courts have ruled that these types of cameras are legal.

Please reveal these examples...

As I said I'm not a lawyer, and that is simple check will reveal them. Googling "rear end collisions not at fault" comes up with 71,000 hits.

Choosing one of the first links reveals Florida Appellate Court decisions.

http://tinyurl.com/yzzpfng

See page 12

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Saleme, 32

First is says; "The jury in a civil case found the defendant 85% negligent
and the plaintiff 15% negligent." showing that in civil court at least, you can be found not to be 100% at fault because you rear-ended someone else. (An absolute)

Yes, I did read the rest of the decision that over turned this result, because the "at fault" person was found to be speeding at 25 - 30mph over the speed limit...

However, the important sentence in this decision is this:

"The district court noted that the presumption of liability against the rear driver in a rear end collision could only be overcome for one of the three common law reasons: mechanical failure, a sudden and unexpected stop or unexpected lane change by the car in front, or an illegal (and therefore unexpected) stop."

IOW, if there is a mechanical failure you aren't at fault or the person you hit has made unexpected or illegal lane change or stop, it's their fault, not yours.

This means your absolute that you are always at fault if you rear end someone is not an absolute.

Does this have anything to do with this thread? No.
Does it mean that I'm wrong in my first post that in my opinion a government agency will be involved in a lawsuit due to increased accidents at intersections that contain RLCs? No.

Fault has nothing to do with being involved in a lawsuit.

I think everyone will agree that motorist's behavior and decision making are diffrent at photo-enforcement intersections vs non-photo enforcement intersections....Even in the "good", "law abiding" motorists.

(I myself no-longer exercise the option to turn right-on-red at these intersections.)

Any review of the studies by B.F. Skinner in the 1950's will remind you that people's behavior does change when they know they are being observed.

It would appear that this change in human behavior is expressing itself as an overall increase in accidents at these photo-intersections.

After all, a large part of "safe driving" is having the right set of "expectations" about what other drivers are going to do around you. Change, or get those expectations wrong, and you get accidents.

For a study to be more conclusive that the increase in accidents is caused by the cameras, one would want to compare the increase in accidents at the photo-intersection to a control group of similar, non-photo-intersections.

Comparison with a control group will give you the true spread (or delta) in accident rates at the camera installed intersections.

My gut feeling is...in a comparison with an actual control group the change (delta) in overall accident rates at photo-intersections will be even higher than the "before-after" comparison made by the reporter. (Overall accident rates have steadily declined over the past two decades.)

And, yes, you are absolutely correct...It is only a matter of time (if not already) an enforcement camera operator is sued as a contributing factor in an accident.

However, I also no longer carry ID stating I am legally certified to enforce the statutes and laws of the State of California, City and County of San Diego. My shield number, not that it means anything was 175. I normally worked Patrol and Traffic in the Northern Division.

Are you saying (above) you were a Law Enforcement Officer?

So...what do you do now?

I'm the telecommunications manager for an organization that is involved in traffic safety.

Do you, or your organization, do work or consulting for any of the photo-enforcement camera operators or municipalities where they operate?

Seeking any future work with them?

Our organization has been around for 95 years and deals only with the state governments.

I saw the video on Channel 9 in the LA area and was horrified at the extreme accidents. I think I will bookmark your reference to the video. It will be a sobering reminder of what can happen when people drive recklessly or ignore traffic lights.....

The thing is, I don't think those accidents would have been avoided had there been a RLC at the intersection.

These cameras are there to take your money and put it into the coffers of the camera companies and cities. Period. Any reference to safety is just something to try and sell the public and some people are gullible enough to believe it.

So, as you are a former Law Enforcement Officer and currently involved with a traffic safety organization, I am sure you are aware of the term, "contributing factor" when refering to transportation accidents?

As a matter of fact let me give you an analogy...

Lets say at busy intersection "A" there is a man standing on the corner throwing fist fulls of $100 bills in the air as the traffic light turns yellow. His actions cause several cars to slam on their brakes in hopes of a better chance at GAINING a few of these bills floating in the air. A few of these stopping and abruptly slowing cars are rear-ended by preceeding traffic. A police officer is called to the accident scene.

It is more than likely the officer will site the money-throwing-man for creating a traffic hazard and also possibly careless and reckless endangerment. He will also include the money-throwing man's actions in the automobile accident reports as a "contributing factor" to the accidents. If so, in civil court the man can be found partially responsible for the accidents...even though he wasn't even driving a car. (E.g. The money-throwing man's actions created an expected behaviorial response in the passing motorists that was counter to the smooth flow of traffic and public safety.)

Now...At busy intersection "B" a man sets-up a very precise camera that can take a picture of every car who's last centementer of tail bumper does not cross the the unmarked center of the intersection when the light changes from YELLOW to RED. When this happens the man sends a bill to the motorist for between $100 to $400 - no questions, no appeal. Only the camera man knows the precise center of the intersection, and the camera is also very precise. It does not miss an offender even by a centemeter.

This, too, causes a change in behavior of the motorists at this intersection. Now, instead of using the yellow light as a period of judgement (as it was intended) some of the motorist simply come to an abrupt hault at the first indication of the yellow signal - so as not to LOSE between $100 and $400 to the man with the camera.

This, too, causes an increase in rear-end traffic accidents just like it did with the money-throwing man at intersection "A". But, when the officer arrives to investigate and fill out the rear-end accident reports at intersection "B" he negelects to include the man with the camera as a "contributing factor".

Why is that?

At both intersections "A" and "B" people were motived to come to unexpected and abrupt haults. In one intersection to GAIN money, in another intersection so not to LOSE money. But currently in the eyes of the law, only one intersection (intersection "A") is the hazard.

Why is that?

And remember...neither action - throwing money in the air or taking pictures - in itself is illegal. And BOTH were only preformed when the light turned yellow.

Yet, only one currently is a hazard. Why is that?

So...That is a short lesson in "contributing factor"...and its inequalities...

I've said it before..I'll say it again...

Proof exists that RL cams increase accidents.
RL cams are purely revenue generators.

Those who disagree's are free to 'prove their case'.
Funny tho..that rarely, if ever, happens.

Exactly right. It's *all* about the money.

I use this method too.

Just a matter of time before one of these cameras is found as a contributing factor in an accident.

FYI...If you drive through La Jolla, Californina watch-out for the camera installed at N. Torrey Pines Road and Genesee Avenue. A few weeks ago men were working on it. This week (around sunset) I observed the camera "flash" two cars turning right onto Genesee - AFTER they had both made full stops. I'll never know if those two got a ticket in the mail, but FYI to you.

Again...I don't turn right-on-red at enforcement intersections - too risky.

A city councilman in Seattle this week stated he wanted to increase the number or red light cameras as the city needed the revenue.

He honestly did not even mention safety.

I would not mind these traps as much if the pedestrian lights all had countdown timers giving a clue as to when the idiot light was going to turn yellow. Otherwise it is guessing game and anyone can lose on that deal.

These council members will get what they want and we will lose, for sure.

Too bad, we cannot shut them up or send them to jail.