Red-light cameras prompt backlash, but they save lives
 15 years
|
Our view on road safety: Red-light cameras prompt backlash, but they save lives
Reckless drivers don’t have a right to break law, endanger others.
Wow, what a nice photo of your car. Running a red light. A couple of weeks ago. And look at this — a ticket for $40. Or maybe a lot more. You've been busted by a camera, and you've got little choice but to pay up.
Getting a camera ticket in the mail is one of modern life's more infuriating moments, and one that has a creepy Orwellian feel to it.
As red-light cameras have proliferated to 439 communities in 26 states and the District of Columbia, a public backlash is developing. As USA TODAY's Larry Copeland reported last month, angry drivers in some places have voted to ban red-light cameras, and legislators in several states have agreed to make them go away.
The rebellion was predictable given the way the cameras have sometimes been misused. But the fact is, red-light running is a deadly problem, and cameras — installed the right way for the right reason — can reduce it.
In 2008, for example, 762 people were killed and an estimated 137,000 injured in accidents that involved red-light running, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an industry-backed group that strongly supports the cameras. About half those victims were innocents — pedestrians or occupants of cars hit by red-light runners.
Camera critics point to surveys that claim to show the devices have no effect on red-light running and dangerous intersection crashes, but the weight of the evidence seems to confirm the common sense conclusion. When drivers know they can be caught by red-light cameras, they're likelier to slow down and stop instead of racing through yellow or red lights.
Studies in Fairfax, Va., and Oxnard, Calif., show cameras reduce red-light running by about 40%. In Oxnard, intersection crashes dropped 29%, and the particularly dangerous "T-bone" crashes — the front of one car slamming into the side of another — dropped 32%.
The critics also say abrupt stopping itself can cause trouble, and some studies do show a rise in rear-end crashes when drivers stop quickly at intersections with red-light cameras. Virginia banned red-light cameras in 2005 for just this reason. And then it reinstated them in 2007. A study by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration showed that over seven years when the cameras were in use, rear-end crashes rose 27% at intersections with cameras. But the much deadlier T-bone crashes fell 42%, saving lives.
There's no denying that there's something Big Brotherish about being watched by cameras when you're driving. Yet as long as the system is fair and saves lives, the trade-off is worth it. Unlike speed traps, for example, the locations of red-light cameras should be — and usually are — well marked and heavily publicized before they go into operation.
The best systems put safety first, and money second. In too many cases, communities made deals that give camera vendors a cut of ticket revenue — so the more tickets, the more revenue. That's a bad bargain.
Then there's the question of yellow-light timing. Shortening yellows can dramatically — and unfairly — increase the number of drivers caught on camera. There's no excuse for using cameras as "gotcha" revenue-raisers instead of safety devices. By the same token, however, there's no excuse for petulant drivers to act as if well-designed cameras intrude on their rights. No one has the "right" to risk people's lives by running red lights.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/debate-on-road-safety...
Although this author brings up a bunch of points related to drops in the numbers of accidents at intersections, I can only wonder at how much the drop would be if they just lengthened the yellow light or had both directions in the intersection red at the same time. I cannot say that I agree with this.
Standards
Although this author brings up a bunch of points related to drops in the numbers of accidents at intersections, I can only wonder at how much the drop would be if they just lengthened the yellow light or had both directions in the intersection red at the same time. I cannot say that I agree with this.
Maybe one way to convert some camera opponents to al least a neutral position would be if there were "standards" about the timing of the yellow lights at intersections with cameras. that is what Tennessee in now debating.
Article from The Chattanooga Times Free Press February 10, 2010.
“NASHVILLE -- Legislation restricting Tennessee cities' use of red-light and speed-enforcement cameras was delayed until April 1 Tuesday.
The delay was approved in order to give local and state officials time to develop comprehensive standards governing the technology's growing use.
The bill's sponsor, House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Harmon, D-Dunlap, warned that if no rules are forthcoming from cities, police chiefs, sheriffs, traffic engineers and state officials, he will push his original bill as well as legislation that would completely abolish use of traffic cameras to issue tickets to motorists.
"I'm disappointed we can't move this bill as is, to be perfectly honest with you, but there's more than just us in this House and I think this is an opportunity to be able to pass a bill after we get those regulations," he said.
Among other things, the bill establishes a two-year moratorium on the use of new cameras and changes the current $50 fine to a graduated fine schedule. Changing fines would force the bill into the House Finance Committee, where opponents of restrictions may be able to block it.
Maggie Duncan of the Tennessee Association of Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police expressed willingness to work on rules and standards. She said many lawmakers "see these programs have value but want to make sure they're in place properly."
Matt Lea, who lobbies for the city of Chattanooga, said Chattanooga officials support common standards such areas as where cameras should be installed for safety purposes.”
There was another recent article from the Chattanooga Times Free Press, titled "Cleveland won't seek a new camera vendor". The camera company which was providing cameras for Cleveland, TN was losing money and decided to turn off its cameras at five red-light cameras on March 31. Because of the bill in the Tennesse legislature, Cleveland has decided to wait until it is clearer what the legislature will do before deciding whether to seek a new camera vendor. The city manager said "The city pays Traffipax $16,750 a month regardless of the volume of citations." She said that to ensure that motorists are aware of the cameras at the five intersections, the city posted warning sighns in each direction, although the single camera at each intersection can look only one way.
"We didn't lose money" the city manager said, "but it was about public safety. I think they have changed behaviour as drivers."
If as the author of the USAToday article says, red-light cameras save lives; if there were standards for the length of the yellow at each red-light intersection, as Tennessee is debating; if any revenue in excess of the cost of the cameras were directed to public safety departments, like 911; and, if there were warning signs before each camera, what then would be the objections to cameras?
A government study has
A government study has already been run that shows by merely lengthening the timing of the yellow light from 1 to 2 seconds provides more accident prevention than the red light cameras. Reducing accidents by red light cameras requires a cognitive dependency on the driver. With conversations and cell phones going on, this is not omnipresent. A visual recognition is far more effective.
When I lived in California, I saw many critical intersections that were programmed to all red for a period of time for further protection in dangerous intersections.
The city of Lakeland, Florida, has even resorted to using cameras to see if you do a rolling stop at a red light, or to see if your vehicle is over the white line when you do stop. These are strictly revenue creating operations. In many cases you can't even see cross-bound vehicles unless you breach the white line. This means that you must stop twice at these intersections. This increases overall fuel consumption, travel time and chances for rear end collisions. These "violations" are not even read in the local community who has the cameras, but in other states and even other countries. This forces you to do a local appeal to a reviewer who is paid by, of course, the city.
It is a known fact that many, if not most, municipalities are using these cameras solely for revenue generation. The cities of San Diego and Los Angeles were both caught decreasing the yellow light below Federal guidelines and were ordered to reset the timings. This proves that government is using the cameras for revenue. They just all have not been caught yet.
The bottom line is to increase the yellow timings and/or apply double red light timings. This decreases T-bone crashes and reduces the rear end collisions at the same time. There is no need for cameras. Cities can get their revenue the responsible way - through the will of the people.
Gotta travel on ... with my nuvi 2450LM.
Don't be a sucker...
The editors of USATODAY create a set of false choices from which you can choose.
The editor states:
------
"By the same token, however, there's no excuse for petulant drivers to act as if well-designed cameras intrude on their rights. No one has the "right" to risk people's lives by running red lights."
------
Notice here the editor has carefully framed all those that argue against red-light cameras to be "petulant drivers" acting as if their "rights" have been {falsely} intruded upon.
Well....that is just NOT the case. Plain and simple.
Further, I hope you can also see in their statement, they are implying that the arguments against red-light camers are arguments FOR the "right" to run a red-light.
Again, not the case...No-one is arguing the "right" to run a red-light.
Sad, the editor of USATODAY could only frame the basis of their editoral on a writer's equivalent of slight-of hand. But, alas, I guess that is the purpose of a false choice, isn't it?...To get you to WILLINGLY CHOOSE the wrong conclusion on your own.