Do speed cameras really cut accidents?

Since it would appear that safety has been a result, do you have any suggestions as to what might be more effective use of funds or another choice that would maintain the safety already attained

I will admit that just the statement “saving lives” is not a convincing statement without a context. When I made the statement I had in mind my own city.

When I made the statement about altering yellow light timings, I knew of only one source although people had said something like you have

As I try to be fact based in my beliefs, I make it a point to collect links to various studies – both for and against. I have found that things are rarely black and white – mostly shades of gray. My research leads me to think that most sites are in opposition to cameras, so it ought to be relatively easy for someone who wants to present facts to me to perhaps make me change my position ought to be able to find them.

I also doubt that my jurisdiction is focused only on safety. I do believe that safety was the original motivation based on where the first cameras were located – the “S” curves were notorious for accidents – several of them fatal. Based of the fact that safety has improved and that revenue is also generated, there are two good reasons to keep them.

I do look – say every two weeks or so – for new studies and articles on cameras. I do not find articles on “has been poor” in the context I was speaking of. Would you be able to provide any?

I apologize for not saying “In all of the instances in which this has been reported that I have read” Since I was commenting on facts that did not support my position, I did not think it necessary to support them. I’ll try to be more careful.

That is a fair and balanced position. Thanks for that

However, my previous comment was about supposedly a municipality lowering yellow light timing to increase revenue after cameras were already in place. In this case, it seems were are talking about a minimum timing, 2.6 seconds - which I think is too low.

and mediocre levels of good (complete) statistical data are why I'm currently of the opinion that on the whole these things aren't very effective (for safety alone), and we need to find better alternatives. And it's just wrong to implement and promote them solely on safety when the programs inevitably become an easy income source in and of themselves. Then the income and not safety becomes at least partial justification. And that's just not honest & forthright for those we entrust our power to. I'm also of the opinion that there are usually better alternatives to throwing money at problems and government. Unless you don't have a concrete goal to begin with.

You said you don't find articles on "has been poor", but originally you did say you were aware there have been poor implementations. What I added was "continues to be".

As for links, etc. I'll say that I'm currently in a 'holding pattern" on needing/wanting to spend further time digging them out, having reached my current personal conclusion. But suffice it to say that I generally use the POIFactory posts & links (pro & con) as thought provokers, follow up various positions by looking for specific data on .edu and .gov (and state) sites. Once you cut through the non-facts I think you'll find underwhelming evidence on either side, if you omit the monetary topic. About the only link I thought had enough real data in aggregate to bookmark was http://ntl.bts.gov/. That's a good place to start, but it still takes a lot of specific keyword searching, reading, and particular care in reading a study's caveats, and noting (er,) source bias as the data can be from non-government stakeholders.

Two items are self-evident though:
-Cameras DO have an effect on speed and incidents (both good & bad)
-Revenue IS a publicly stated justification for them.

On balance... ??

SORRY! I meant to quote

"Mike107

Why Complain
As long as they don't cut the yellow light short I don't see why anyone should complain about the cameras. You know where they are in your home area and can get a GPS warning for most other areas when traveling so don't try to run the light.
It can't help but improve safety if less people are running lights.
All the arguments against them seem to me just a rational to be able to run red lights."

Obviously, people are running red lights. Have you seen how much money red light cameras generate? If those intersections were really safer, there'd be ZERO people running the lights. Basically, RLCs make people pay for the privilege of running a red light, that's all.

That is exactly what I'm talking about as well. The red light camera intersections will be manipulated to generate more revenue. But okay, just dismiss this example because it's invalid for whatever reason.

that you will post the link.

Hovever, my personal feeling is that the yellow light timings will be lengthened.

If you happen to read something that gives the amount of time in which lights are "all red" (regardless of direction", we would be interested in knowing. I do not believe that the engineers have yet come to a conclusion as to the how a certain yellow timing and "all red" timing together best interact to improve safety.

Yes, well, can you dis-prove that my left toe cut accidents also?

provide any support for your general statement?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/07/redligh...

"Other changes codified what is already common practice. One provision mandates yellow lights on traffic signals be timed to comply with broad guidelines set by state transportation officials, a standard that every community with cameras already claims to meet.

The law takes effect Jan. 1."

Come January 1st, those lights will be changed.

Thanks for this link.

We have previously been discussing jurisdictions that lowered yellow light timings below accepted guidelines to generate revenue. The quote you made from the article states that "every community with cameras already claims to meet" the standards.

Is there evidence that some communities really have not been meeting "broad guidelines"?

I totally agree with Mike, Why do you have to worry about cams if you will not run red lights. It's not only for the sfety of others but you youself.

That's assuming that the cameras make the intersections safer. I'm assuming that the cameras make the intersections more dangerous.

If the intersections were safer, why do we have a poi board that updates us on all of the new camera locations? Why do we need the heads up? The intersections are safer, are they not? They should be alerting us to all of the non-camera intersections.

Thank you... your retirement from the force was undoubtedly a blow against the rational enforcement of traffic laws in your area. I have no doubt that someone getting a ticket with your signature on it, actually deserved it... every time.

Older NHTSA studies that clearly showed the speed limits are artificially low by 15-25 mph on most roadways support your statement. Not sure if any new studies have been commissioned... I know that the insurance industry tried to disprove them since turning generally safe drivers into violators by setting artificially low speed-limits increases their revenue.

In my younger days, my preferred "cruising speed" was generally around 85 mph where conditions would safely permit... and I never had an accident nor a close call doing so. My situation is similar to another poster's... the only accident I had was where a young girl pulled out in front of my traffic lane in the rain, then panicked and pulled the rest of the way in front of me after I had managed to maneuver out of the way. It was actually a good lesson for me though... it taught me that no matter how good of a driver you are, or think you are, there are situations that you simply cannot drive yourself out of. Fortunately I wasn't going that fast at the time... I always limited the higher-speed driving to controlled-access roads like interstates and/or driving on appropriate roadways late at night where traffic was sparse and you could see the lights of any cars that might be in your vicinity around intersections. Fortunately I never met any deer on those nights...

My secret? PAYING ATTENTION AT ALL TIMES, as well as following at a safe distance (and them some) behind the car in front of you. Oh, and did I mention PAYING ATTENTION?

Traffic here has gotten to the point where it's generally not safe to drive so fast anymore, and driver proficiency here in MD seems to have slowly and continuously degraded, adding to the above problem. Leaving a safe distance is often impossible now, as the less-proficient drivers simply pull in front of you so as not to break the tailgating chain.

Some data I heard about indicated that the red-light cameras decreased side-impact collisions but increased rear-end collisions. Not surprising really... the net effect was somewhat positive since side-impact collisions tend to be more serious.

If the cameras would give people the benefit of the doubt and not ticket them for going through the intersection 200 milliseconds after the light turns red, they wouldn't feel the need to slam on their brakes (and be rear-ended) for fear of a ticket when the light starts to change on them at just the wrong time in their approach.

On the other hand, if 7 more cars wouldn't drive through an intersection AFTER the light turns red, we wouldn't need these cameras at all.

- Phil

Your comment on safe distance is critical to reducing accidents. It would be nice if there was more enforcement in this area but it would require too many people and resources to police and is an infraction that is very subjective.

However, that point leads to thoughts on the 200 millisecond benefit.

Why do people drive so close to the car in front of them. There are many reasons - one of which is the distracted driver on a cellphone who just gets too close without even realizing it. However, another reason is that some drivers want anyone in front of them to get out of the way. Sometimes they are in a hurry because they are late, some just want to be ahead of everyone.

These are the people who try to "beat" the light and will do so regardless of what the timings and leeways are. Consider speed limits. If the type of driver I am speaking of knows that they are unlikely to get a ticket unless they are going more than x miles over the speed limit then they will push the limit.

People are very adaptable. The human mind has great capacity to determine just how far to push any limit. Even if the yellow light were say, 10 seconds giving a prudent driver ample time to stop, there will always be those who would try to beat the light.

That presents traffic engineers with a problem that involves safety considerations as well as human psychology issues. What is the balance? I do not think anyone knows.

What seems to work is to install cameras along with warning signs that a camera is ahead, make sure that news outlets are informed and publicize the fact that cameras are being installed and what the fines will be. Of course, some of us will have alerts from our GPS units.

If this is done, would it not seem that those caught for infractions knowingly made a decision to break the law? Would we not want to discourage such behavior?

Agreed... on all counts. It is one of the best ways to avoid an accident, and really costs you nothing... unless you insist on being able to read the fine print on a bumper-sticker on the car in front of you. Still... it's very difficult to force people to do it as it's difficult to enforce as you said. Perhaps if all vehicles had a difficult-to-disable alarm built in that would annoy the driver with a voice prompt if they followed at an unsafe distance for the vehicle's travel speed for more than a few seconds. I hate the idea of a babysitter, but the future alternative is eventually going to be I Robot's "autodrive" and that won't be any fun at all.

I have to agree with you there, too...

Running red lights is yet another easily-avoidable accident waiting to happen. I agree that anyone who blatantly runs a red light should get a ticket. The biggest issue I see with the red light cameras was the ridiculously short yellow light times that were set early-on in order to raise revenues, often by the companies who installed/administered them and got a "cut" of the fine. That business model invites corruption and no one should be surprised at what happened.

Now a lot of drivers, "once-bitten" by the improperly-configured lights, are going to slam on their brakes when they see the yellow because they just can't tell how long the light is going to stay yellow before it changes.

People need to be de-conditioned from this response, and the only way I know of to do it is to relax the margin for driver error on the red light somewhat. How much to do so is a subject for traffic engineers, law-enforcement professionals and possibly even psychologists to decide.

Having a less-visible margin time after the light turns red would probably be more effective than lengthening an already reasonable yellow light time. If a driver wanted to push the limit then they'd have to learn what it was by getting a few tickets in the process.

an interesting link on the subject that I found in the St Louis Post

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_98eb1d3f-87c8-...

I saw the article this morning but did not find a link - go glad you had one. In my paper, the byline was "New York times news Service". You paper had

I was interested in the part that says "A study of seven communities by the Federal Highway Administration found that while the more dangerous broadside collisions were reduced by 25 percent at intersections with traffic lights that had a camera, there was also a 15 percent increase in rear-end collisions, possibly caused by drivers slamming on their brakes at the sight of the devices." Camera opponents often quote the part about the 15% increase in rear-end accidents without also mentioning the 24% treduction in t-bone accidents.

Here's a question for you, 25% reduction from what? And a 15% increase from what? Without those other pieces of information, it sounds great, but it doesn't really illustrate what's going on.

I agree with the need for more data than was given in my statement which was a quote from the article (assuming I had correctly typed 25%) which was the basis of a headline of another that said that red-light cameras increased rear-end accidents by 15% and gave no context. That other article was quoted in a thread on POI-factory which I found and looked at the underlying study to look for the rest of the facts which were not there.

I applaud you for not wanting to accept statements without a chance to look at the underlying data to see if the right conclusion was drawn.

Red light cameras generating most of their revenue for the village from right turn on red. No safety issue at all. Just a revenue generator. Disgusting!