This is interesting, there is discussion in Ottawa about moving around red light cameras. Meaning the camera would not be set in one place permanently but moved around to different locations/intersections.
Any thoughts on this tactic? Have any other locations in Canada or the US discuss this?
should be normal.
Just like cops, you won't see them waiting at same spot all the time.
...the Red Light file on this site in terms of where these red light cameras are?
I agree that its no different than if a cop were to move from red-light to red-light ... its not like you could complain that he wasn't sitting at the same intersection each day.
...but that doesn't mean I like it.
In my mind, this just makes it more blatantly about money than safety--that is, trying to catch people unawares.
We should identify each location & hold them in the database no matter which site they're at. That way, we'd get alerts at all the sites they would be rather than playing Russian Roulet with the turkeys.
This is just like identifying sites at which police cars hang out at.
Even the most adamant critics of cameras has to admit that those ticketed were almost always breaking the law. My feeling is that is is better for lawbreakers to provide part of the funds needed for police protection, garbage services, road repairs, and so on, than for me to pay higher taxes.
When the police change neighborhoods to catch drug dealers who have moved on from the previous place under surveilance, most people applaud. What is different about doing the same thing on another class of lawbreaker?
.. Have any other locations in Canada or the US discuss this?
Haven't heard it mentioned on the east coast U.S., but it's only a matter of time (if not going on already).
They have been doing that with speed cams in the U.K. for years & probably the rest of Europe as well.
Cracks me up that we in North America think we're so inventive and autonomous.
Although I gotta admit that it's pretty inventive to connect running red lights and trash pickup.
YES IN NEW YORK, I KNOW THEY MOVE THE CAMERAS AROUND. DONT KNOW THE FREQUENCY OF IT.
I don't think it's practical to move around the cameras every once in a while. People may be caught off guard at the begining, but how much money and manpower would be involved to move the cameras around? not seem to make sense to me.
Relight camera on vodden and Kennedy, Brampton.ontario isn't working, its listed under the rlc directory, but when approaching the camera the gps does not acknowledge it.
Given the randomness of people getting caught by short yellow lights, it would be better to have higher taxes so that the burden would be shared by all instead of the unlucky motorists who get caught by a short yellow. Better yet, the politicians who are so eager to get the camera money should make do with less. In any case, the cameras need to be banned.
Interesting. Now you see it, now you don't.
You can't reasonably compare catching drug dealers with ticketing people for squeaking through a red.
From the studies I've seen, the incidence of rear end accidents shoots up when they put in the cameras.
I can understand this; I hate it whenever I see a red light camera because I then have to worry about overcompensating when making that instant decision whether to stop or go if it turns yellow when I'm close--and what about that idiot following close behind me who expects me to shoot through?
I do not think the comparison is unreasonable. There are many reasonable people who would be for legalizing certain drugs as several countries in Europe have done - but they would still be all for catching the pushers.
I am very careful not to drive so that there is a car behind me who is too close. Admit I can not always avoid it but am successful most ot the time. I would submit that driving at or below the speed limit gives the attentive driver plenty of time to make an informed decision as to whether to proceed through a yellow light or stop. Indeed, since you are on this site, you would have access to the POI file which warns you in advance, giving you ample time to prepare.
I would be interested in any links to studies that show that rear end collisions go up when cameras are installed as I have not seen any. That my be an "urban myth".
How do you suggest that people who habitually run redlights (because they know that there is a delay - usually 2 seconds - after their light turns red until the perpendicular traffic's light turns green)? These are the people who t-bone the other car which causes injury in addition to property damage.
The issue of drug legalization is not relevant. Whatever the pros/conss to that argument, they ARE illegal, and the drug pushers you speak of are factors behind significant violent crime. Getting heavily armed, vicious things off corners is not the same as running a red.
And driving carefully is also no help, as you can't control the behavior of some moron who so desperately wants to get through that light. Just yesterday I stopped for a light and some idiot blared his horn and swerved around me to get through just as it turned red.
As for rear end collisions:
"A new Virginia Department of Transportation study shows accidents increased by nearly a third where red light cameras were used."
"In Charlotte, North Carolina, station WBTV had this to say, 'Three years, 125,000 tickets, and $6 million in fines later, the number of accidents at intersections in Charlotte has gone down less than one percent. And the number of rear-end accidents, which are much more common, has gone up 15 percent.'
In Greensboro, the News & Record reports, 'There has not been a drop in the number of accidents caused by red-light violations citywide since the first cameras were installed in February 2001. There were 95 such accidents in Greensboro in 2001, the same number as in 2000. And at the 18 intersections with cameras, the number of wrecks caused by red-light running has doubled.'"
And how about the US DOT Federal Highway Administration::
"Total rear end crashes increased by 14.9 percent, and rear end (definite) injury crashes increased by 24 percent."
The full report from which the "thenewspaper.com" article was taken engaged in selective reporting. the "abstract" from the report said "This report documents the safety impacts of those cameras based on 7 years of crash data for the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2004. Consistent with the findings of a previous Virginia study (Garber et al., 2005), this study finds that cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end crashes (about 27% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as shown in Tables ES1 and H1) and a decrease in red light running crashes (about 8% or 42% depending on the statistical method used as
shown in Tables ES1 and H2). This report also shows that there is significant variation by intersection and by jurisdiction: one jurisdiction (Arlington) suggests that cameras are associated with an increase in all six crash types that were explicitly studied (rearend, angle, red light running, injury red light running, total injury, and total) whereas two other jurisdictions saw decreases in most
of these crash types.
It is therefore not surprising that when the comprehensive crash costs for rear-end and angle crashes are monetized, the cameras are associated with an increase in crash costs in some jurisdictions (e.g., an annual increase of $140,883 in Arlington) and a net reduction in comprehensive crash costs in other jurisdictions (e.g., an annual reduction of $92,367 in Vienna). When these results are aggregated across all six jurisdictions, the cameras are associated with a net increase in comprehensive crash costs. However, when considering only injury crashes, if the three fatal angle crashes that occurred during the after period are removed from the analysis (the only fatalities that occurred during the study out of 1,168 injury crashes), then the cameras were associated
with a modest reduction in the comprehensive crash cost for injury crashes only."
I find it is often the case that reporters select portions of articles or reports that match their bias.
The US DOT report made this statement: "Table 17 shows the combined results from all seven jurisdictions, indicating a 24.6 percent reduction in total right-angle crashes and a 15.7 percent reduction in right-angle (definite) injury crashes. Total rear end crashes increased by 14.9 percent, and rear end (definite) injury crashes increased by 24 percent. While the results varied some across the seven jurisdictions, the direction and degree were remarkably consistent, particularly given the differences in crash-reporting practices between jurisdictions."
The data says that the reduction (24.6) in right-angle crashes was more than the increase (14.9) in ear-end crashes. However the reduction (15.7) in right-angle injury crashes was offset by an increase (24.0) in rear-end injury crashes. This data, by itself, produces a mixed bag.
However, the report concludes:
"The following primary conclusions are based on these current analyses:
•Even though the positive effects on right-angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year, depending on whether one examines only injury crashes or includes PDOs, and on whether the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe right-angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real.
•Even if modest, this economic benefit is important. In many instances today, the RLC systems pay for themselves through red-light-running fines generated. However, in many jurisdictions, this differs from most safety treatments where there are installation, maintenance, and other costs that must be weighed against the treatment benefits.
•The modest benefit per site is an average over all sites. As the analysis of factors that impact showed, this benefit can be increased through careful selection of the sites to be treated (e.g., sites with a high ratio of right-angle to rear end crashes as compared to other potential treatment sites) and program design (e.g., high publicity, signing at both intersections and jurisdiction limits). "
It seems to me that these reports support the use of cameras. When you read them in their entirety, do you not agree that they are supportive?
You're changing the argument. I said: "From the studies I've seen, the incidence of rear end accidents shoots up when they put in the cameras," in the context that I disliked them because I thought someone will eventually rear end me when I stop to be sure I didn't get caught.
You then said "I would be interested in any links to studies that show that rear end collisions go up when cameras are installed as I have not seen any. That my be an 'urban myth.'"
I provided links to those studies As such, whether other impacts are reduced is irrelevant to your claim that the rear end collisions going up is an "urban myth."
But to take it back further, the "economic benefit" the DOT report addresses talks about overall costs--property damage, etc., which is borne by the individuals and insurance companies. My earliest statement was that localities put them in because of the fines they reap--and if the goal is safety, not $$$, then even if we assume there's an overall safety benefit, they shouldn't randomly move the cameras around. That's a "gotcha" effect, generating fines rather than stopping people from going through lights.
To paraphrase one recent resident of 1600 PA Ave, "It depends on what your definition of is is." Data is data and that doesn't change. What does change is how the data is interpreted. You both are right and the data can be interpreted to support both arguments.
I will state I support the cameras but I do not support they way they are used by many jurisdictions. So there is the difference. It's not the camera, it's how it is used. I think that is the difference between the two arguments. I've seen too many instances of people just running through a red to make a turn because stopping would mean they would either have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear the intersection or there was no other car in sight. The underlying law doesn't say "If convenient come to a full stop before proceeding" it says "after a full stop."
It goes back to interpretation. Some want to interpret the law to mean "when convenient" while others say it says what it says. 30 years ago police officers enforced traffic laws, now the only ones you see regularly enforcing traffic laws are the state/highway patrol. What happened to the local enforcement? That's why we have cameras.
This complicates things. I guess people are catching onto where the current cameras are so they're not making enough money with them.
And that was what I'd said originally.
There is a UK speedcam database available that has a separate category for "mobile cams", i.e. specific locations that police use but that are not fixed cameras. You are warned when approaching the location, the subsequent driving decision is up to you i.e. "Are you feeling lucky today?"
Maybe something similar could be used for movable cams in the POI database?
San Francisco is installing traffic camera's on the city's buses. Tickets are issued to the vehicle owner (not necessarily the driver) for any violations recorded on these mobile cameras.
This happens in Toronto as well. Anytime a particular red-light camera does not generate enough revenue - it is moved to a new location
If cities and municipalities have the time and money to install all the RLC and Speed Cameras, then surely they have the money to buy technology that would prevent accidents. The problem is that they really want the money.
As an example, it would be entirely possible to set up 4 way intersections where the cross traffic was held until the intersection cleared, thereby by virtually eliminating red light accidents in all but the most extreme (i.e. car chase) situations.
By installing two parallel detectors under the pavement a given distance from the intersection, a computer could calculate the speed of a vehicle as it approaches the intersection where the signal is about to change. If the computer calculates that the vehicle will not stop before the light changes, then the cross-traffic is held until the car passes through the intersection. A camera records the license plate # of the "late crosser" and a firm warning is given stating that the next time there vehicle is involved in a "late crossing" their license will be suspended for 30 days.
The safety problem is all but solved, there's still a significant penalty for infraction, and the government doesn't look like it's just trying to collect money.
It's a win-win-win.
Will it ever happen? Probably not, because what they REALLY want is money............
You could slow down and drive defensively rather than offensively and just assume that any signal you didn't see turn green will be changing before you get there.
As to the detectors, at the World ITS conference last June one company announced they had a magnetic sensor that could take the "signature" of a vehicle and match it to another sample about 15% of the time. And that was truly a cutting edge breakthrough in magnetic sensor technology.
Vancouver does it all the time, the box stays and the camera inside gets moved. Better safe than sorry, warning comes, i watch out, not worth taking a chance.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2016