Call for Mathematicians to unite against red light cameras

 

I have a stopwatch and some statistical software....

Cool. But any suggestions as to where one finds "the guidelines set by the county" on speed vs. yellow light duration?

Mathematicians

That was a superbly written piece.

Loved it.

Fred

Trust

Here again, it’s the principle of trust. Do we trust our officials to administer the laws justly?

There’s an idea summed up by the Latin phrase, lex injusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law at all). I’m not saying that the camera enforcement laws are unjust. However, in cases where a part of the system has been tweaked to allow offenses to occur more easily I’d have to say that action nudges these laws towards that category in the court of public opinion.

But what if it’s the opposite, that the majority of yellow light timing is adequate?

This is an awesome story, i

This is an awesome story, i love it, thanks.

Great Story

So if we gotta have cameras, let's at least keep them honest.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Great Story

That was a fantastic story!

What I liked was the part about objectivity

alokasi wrote:

The last paragraph is the best.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20002210-71.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

The last paragraph said, in part "So might I appeal to all those around the world whose mathematical skills have been certified. Please go forth to your local intersections, clutching your watches and your objectivity"

I do think that the yellow light timing of red-light camera should be periodically checked to ensure that whatever guidelines the municipality claims to be following is indeed followed.

If guidelines are being followed, the next question is whether those guidelines conform to national traffic engineer standards.

I wonder if those opposed to red-light cameras on philosophical grounds will be objective.

That real interesting thanks

That real interesting thanks

--
><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><- 4-Garmin Nuvi 760>>>> Owner: Sunrise Mechanical A/C & Heating,, Peoria, Arizona

The only way to defeat these

The only way to defeat these cameras is to make them a cost instead of a revenue generator.

And do you believe the people making money from them?

jgermann wrote:
alokasi wrote:

The last paragraph is the best.

I wonder if those opposed to red-light cameras on philosophical grounds will be objective.

How many honest politicians can you name? Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, so local governments are better, "Honest"? The camera companies put honesty above profit?

Lowered Expectations

jgermann wrote:

I do think that the yellow light timing of red-light camera should be periodically checked to ensure that whatever guidelines the municipality claims to be following is indeed followed.

If guidelines are being followed, the next question is whether those guidelines conform to national traffic engineer standards.

Well...that's the problem isn't it?

The yellow light "GUIDELINES for national traffic engineers" (that people seem to trust so blindly) have been steadily erroded since 1985.

Sure it sounds simple and cheery to say "just follow the national guidelines and there won't be any problems". After all, if the "guideline" is being met, that is where many people stop and end their search for a complete answer.

As well, guidelines can serve as a GREAT defense to hide behind...

How many times have you heard - and accepted as reasonable, "We here at Corporation X follow all local, state and federal guidelines"?

What you don't hear is "We here at Corporation X are actively lobbying at the local, state and federal levels to reduce the standards of those very guidelines...And we are quite successful at it!"

Guidelines are not made of concrete. They get "modified", and not always for altruistic purposes. If you ask me, "modifying" a guideline with the express purpose of incresing enforcement is a perverse use of it.

As Google says "Do No Evil"

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
jgermann wrote:

I do think that the yellow light timing of red-light camera should be periodically checked to ensure that whatever guidelines the municipality claims to be following is indeed followed.

If guidelines are being followed, the next question is whether those guidelines conform to national traffic engineer standards.

Guidelines are not made of concrete. They get "modified", and not always for altruistic purposes. If you ask me, "modifying" a guideline with the express purpose of incresing enforcement is a perverse use of it.

I agree with that statement in general terms. I have not seen any concrete evidence that such has been the case for red-light cameras. People often selectively quote from thenewspaper.com which itself selectively quotes from studies in an attempt to sway people against red-light cameras.

What is needed is "objective" data, as I said earlier. Just because a number of people are against red-light cameras does not mean that they do not protect the public safety.

I want to interject a thought - FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. A lot of people think they should have the "freedom" to speed, follow too close, run red-lights and the like because they (are late) (in a hurry) (fill in your reason). We live in a country of rule of law and a lot of veterans gave their lives to give us that right.

Camera cmpanies are in business to make a profit

windwalker wrote:
jgermann wrote:
alokasi wrote:

The last paragraph is the best.

I wonder if those opposed to red-light cameras on philosophical grounds will be objective.

How many honest politicians can you name? Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, so local governments are better, "Honest"? The camera companies put honesty above profit?

Camera cmpanies are in business to make a profit. Why does it follow that municipalities are doing the same thing with the installation of cameras. In this bad economic times, surely this must be in the minds of some politicians but I haven't seen evidence of it. For example, an articles that has been posted at this site have with cameras being turned off because the vendor (and it turned out the city also) was not making money.

Would your rather pay higher taxes, or have your city using reasonable and objective guidelines make money putting cameras at intersections with high accident rates?

Only certified mathematicians?

I don't see why you have to be a certified mathematics professional to test the lights.

Looks to me like all you need to know is how to operate a stopwatch....

I think what the article

I think what the article meant was the court listened to the evidences because probably Mogi is Mathematician smile

--
Nuvi 2450LM

"Do No Evil" is a shade paler than "Do the Right Thing"

jgermann wrote:

A lot of people think they should have the "freedom" to speed, follow too close, run red-lights and the like because they (are late) (in a hurry) (fill in your reason). We live in a country of rule of law and a lot of veterans gave their lives to give us that right.

Well...that certainly is a mischaracterization of those arguing against red-light cameras. I know of no individual or organization arguing for the freedom to do those things you have listed.

Further, I don't know of any veterans who gave their lives to protect photo-cameras. So, maybe you should just leave the veterans out of it...

I appologize...

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
jgermann wrote:

A lot of people think they should have the "freedom" to speed, follow too close, run red-lights and the like because they (are late) (in a hurry) (fill in your reason). We live in a country of rule of law and a lot of veterans gave their lives to give us that right.

Well...that certainly is a mischaracterization of those arguing against red-light cameras. I know of no individual or organization arguing for the freedom to do those things you have listed.

Further, I don't know of any veterans who gave their lives to protect photo-cameras. So, maybe you should just leave the veterans out of it...

I appologize if what I said implied that I was making a general statementabout those who argue against red-light cameras. That said, if you are one who thinks that you ought to have the "freedom" to run red-lights without consequences, then my comments would apply to you.

I never said or implied that any veterens "gave their lives to protect photo cameras". I would assert that veterans have given their lives for the rights of you and me to debate whether photo cameras are primarily for safety reasons or are purely a money grab.

And ultimately...

the only time cameras are removed are when they fail to turn a profit for the camera company and/or the government agency.

Does this speak to whether they are there for safety or not?

--
TomTom built in and Garmin Nuvi 1490T. Eastern Iowa, formerly Southern California "You can check out any time you like...but you can never leave."

No it does not

capst wrote:

the only time cameras are removed are when they fail to turn a profit for the camera company and/or the government agency.

Does this speak to whether they are there for safety or not?

I do not think it speaks to the question of safety at all. There have been cameras - Cleveland, TN as I recall - where the camera company declined to renew their contract AND where the city wanted to keep the cameras because of safety reasons even though the city was not making money on the camera either.

Consider the larger picture. A city does not MAKE money by enforcing a whole series of laws. However, citizens demand "public safety" so the city hires a police force. When cities determine that cameras are a cheaper way to enforce traffic laws than constantly posting officers at dangerous intersections to enforce the speed limits or whether citizens are stopping at red-lights, they often make the decision to install cameras in order to free up those officers for solving crimes committed against their citizenry.

Great article, thanks!

Great article, thanks!

Why not?

jgermann wrote:

..
I wonder if those opposed to red-light cameras on philosophical grounds will be objective.

I've always opposed them for philosophical reasons, but I've also always opposed those that ultimately force their use by repeated bad driving behavior. In the same vein I oppose those that accept and/or promote their widespread use without defined operational goals (and thereby restraint in placement), or without effectiveness monitoring.

Another question is can those who advocate widespread use of them also be objective? Or will they ignore the meaning of "modest" in the summary given here?: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14270.htm

Everything in life should have balance whenever possible, imo.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

More of the paragraph

JD4x4 wrote:
jgermann wrote:

..
I wonder if those opposed to red-light cameras on philosophical grounds will be objective.

Another question is can those who advocate widespread use of them also be objective? Or will they ignore the meaning of "modest" in the summary given here?: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14270.htm

Everything in life should have balance whenever possible, imo.

Agree that both sides must be objective.

Just so others don't have to wonder about how "modest" was employed in the link, I provide more of the paragraph that contains the word.

"The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes. There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems even when accounting for the negative impact of rear end collisions. The benefit of RLC systems could increase further, if measures were taken to educate or alert drivers that vehicles preceding them could be stopping suddenly for a red light and thus reduce the likelihood of a rear end crash. A disaggregate analysis found that the greatest economic benefits are associated with the highest total entering average annual daily traffic, the largest ratios of right-angle to rear end crashes, and with the presence of protected left-turn phases. There were weak indications of a spillover effect that point to a possible need for a more definitive, perhaps prospective, study of this issue."

Cameras

Jeez man you all in Arizona are really hit by cameras.Cameras all over the place. Do they really pay off? Some are fixed and some are portable. Man power cameras do they actually do the job?

--
John_nuvi_