Why are we spending so much time on red light & speed cameras?

I concur with Deepstryke's perspective.

I am one of those people that run late occasionally and sometimes find myself driving a bit faster than the posted speeds, it's a good thing to have a warning to slow me down!

JanJ, I worry about being rear ended as you just indicated that you do.

I try to take responsibility for my own safety by being very aware of how close the car behind me really is. If they are getting what I consider too close, I very gradually slow down in the hopes that they will pass me or, if I am in the fast lane, I simply move over and let them by.

I assume that most people know that, when an intersection has walk signals, those signals generally give an indications of whether the yellow light is iminent. If you approach the intersection and the walk signal is still allowing someone to enter the intersection, you can be reasonably sure that the yellow light is still several seconds away.

It seems to me that when opponents of red light cameras advance the argument that they are afraid of being struck in the rear at such camera intersections, they are really giving us some indication of the way they drive.

The files are information that I might not have otherwise. Even though I don't make a habit of deliberately squeezing through a light, I like knowing where they are.

Well THIS thread kept going for a whole week, it is now 3 pages long (yeah!) and I feel better that I do not need to talk about the weather in Halifax (sunny by the way) to keep my windmill!

The discussion is going pretty much as I expected and there now appears to be more "factual" links for confirming/corroborating statistics for each point of view dealing with the camera issues.

Going back to my original post/question, I am willing to concede that I should download the camera POI files when travelling for the safety/information they can convey.

I am also willing to concede that there are two disctinct points of view and there is probably no "moving" those at the extremes.

My continuing (implicit) question, which has not been answered, is whether the cameras for "speed control" are better served in smaller localized areas (over hills for instance when the speed drops dramatically and the only ones "caught" are tourists) or kept for School zones and other high pedestrian traffic areas (i.e. fair grounds and sports "homecomings")

And for the last question - should speed cameras be fixed or portable?

Enjoy your week!

In my opinion, both should be employed. The reason is that a mobile traffic camera van can be moved to streets where there have been complaints of excessive speed. The presence of the van tends to slow down traffic for some period of time even after it has been moved to another location.

In my city, the mobile van has a orange sign that is placed on the side of the road telling motorists that there is a speed camera ahead. Always fascinates me that people still get caught.

They are probably talking on their cell phones while driving and missed it!

In my area there are streets with limits of 25 and 45, and plenty of police on the 25 mph streets where I see people doing 30 down hills and getting tickets all the time.

The funny thing is that locals are so conditioned by the 25 limits that they never go near 45 mph where it is the legal limit. It's kinda annoying.

Ergo, in strange TOWNS, I like to follow the locals and avoid the "sneaky radar" traps! But I agree it can be very annoying when following those who glue the speedo on the limit and do not vary.

In mississippi where i live there are no red light cameras.But over the stateline into Memphis;as you can see they have plenty.Its a nice feature to have when traveling!

Cameras are there to tax more people. It is nice to know they are coming. I think as a minimum all red light cameras should have crosswalks that count down.

Taxes are applied to everyone. Fines from red light cameras are applied to those that fail to come to a complete stop (rolling right on red is probably the most common) or fail to stop before entering the intersection (have your car halfway in the crosswalk). Become a better driver and those tickets go away.

I do agree with your suggestion that there should be a countdown. I think that would improve safety as well as making it harder for someone to fight a ticket.

I would add that I think doing away with the violations for the car stopped over the white line - except when it really posed a safery hazard - would go a long way toward eliminating the "revenue only" claims.

I was interested in the "tax" comment. If there were an officer at the intersection who radioed ahead to chase cars that such and such a car had just run the redlight so that the chase car could make the arrest, would that be a "tax on more people"?

I think that a fine for a traffic violation is just that - a fine. To the extent that it produces revenue for a municipality, it reduces the need to tax all people living in that municipality.

We should all pay attention to how governments at all levels spend our tax dollars. And, we should be open-minded enough to be supportive of spending that does not benefit us directly. I know people who object to spending money on new schools (what is wrong with the old one? I know it is not where it ought to be located, but why can't we bus the kids there?) I am a senior citizen and have no kids in school, but I also know how woefully behind we in the US are in education compared to other industralized nations. It is a question of priorities and therein lies the problem. My priorities might not be the same as yours.

So speak up! But do so in a constructive way. Sometimes we will all have to agree about what we can all do without.

Let's try and separate the "spending sprees" from from reasonable sources of income. For instance, gadget_man agreeing above that red-light runners should get a ticket.

Honestly I have to say that I disagree with the RLC on every level. It is my opinion that this is nothing more than another freedom we have given up.

I am not saying that running a red light or rolling a stop is a freedom. What I am saying is that there is a huge disconnect between the people who are putting these in service and there community's. It is a cheap way to generate revenue. Who makes money from these cameras? The company who makes them and the top of your local government. How many RLC's does it take to cut back on your local law enforcement branch? How many jobs does this take away? Or how many are not created becasue of them?

It is my belief that if I am going to be charged with anything that is going to take money out of my pocket I want to be charged in person.

Which reminds me of the old addage "I like to be kissed before I am ......"

Besides these files had the potential to save my wife $150 last year. If I had only known sooner.

Sometimes there's good reasons for running a red light that shouldn't result in tickets or fines. Things aren't always Black and White. There are shades of Grey in between.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

A similar comment to yours was posted in another thread and the poster was asked for an example of a good reason. Would you give us yours, please?

Good reason for running Red Light, I can't think of one good reason for it.

Why not utilize all the functionality that our purchased toys are capable of? Not a matter of "running" red lights. Only a fool would engage in dangerous unlawful behavior like that.

How about making room for an emergency vehicle that is trying to fight it's way through traffic. Say your stopped at a red light and there is an ambulance trying to get through and all you have to do is move forward or around a corner to let them pass?

There are shades of gray and cameras take away the ability to review those with still shots only. I think heard somewhere that you can actually view film footage of these events. Not sure though.

I would welcome any one of the speed camera installer/manufactuers to put up 1 million dollars to anyone that can prove these things don't increase safety (decrease accidents).
They never will and the reason is they would have so many holes put in their supposed studies people would call for all of them to be removed.
ANYTIME you allow the people that stand to gain collect and compile the data it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what the results will be.
These cameras are nothing more than a tax and given that personally I like to know where the tax man or tax woman is at all times

I have in fact done this and thought it to be the right thing to do. I am not sure what would happen if there was a traffic camera in this situation. I suspect that the fact that you were moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle (and this would be on the video which most cameras now have) would be sufficient defense. Score one for your team.

http://www.chattanooga.gov/LegislativeTour.pdf

Please read this and let me know what the flaws in the study (if any) are. Thanks

Well said... I couldn't agree more! Trust no one, be aware of your surroundings and stay informed!

Your right, by voting you have that right. So keep gripping!

Strange how the base year (1998) had a 50% increase in accidents. Why? No reason given. They don't seem to say what the traffic levels were either. Did they increase over time or go down? Again no information.
To make a rational decision shouldn't they give traffic data like the number of cars using the roads? If the traffic levels went down wouldn't you expect to see a reduction in accidents?
This is a fantasy land storybook not a study.
Your entitled to your opinion but if you really believe this is a full blown study that one could make comphrehensive decisions from about the relationship between cameras and accidents/safety I feel sorry for you.
As the study I'll cite states you have to look at who's behind these studies too.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/03/new-study-says/

I hate those cameras! never had problem with them anywhere and I owned GPS since some time and was using red light camera warning ... I always though that when you enter the intersection on yellow then you MUST leave on red as soon as possible (correct me if wrong) and nothing illegal in that. sometimes breaking down to stop on a dime before a stupid camera is not an option!

Recently in a spot that i knew the red light camera has been installed for a long time a did usual thing ... entered intersection on yellow (as I would need to stomp on brakes to stop before that) and * flash * flash *, a few weeks later I got an $85 ticket ... idiotic ... i think they adjusted the delay time of those cameras recently, so now they shoot pics more often (more money for the city).

i'm really annoyed with that ... thinking about getting the plate "protectors"...

did you check the pictures? another car could have entered the intersection on the red and they just gave you a ticket at the same time.

check and see if the city passed an ordinance making the yellow the same as a red light.

Could just skip those threads & posts. Just saying...

Everyone has their own choice - use the files or not.

The problem right now is that its an assumption that if you do everything right, that if something goes wrong - over the line, bad pic, bad timing that you will be corrected.

But even if it is, you still lose your time.

there was another car driving along (on my right) which was a little behind me... could it be that i got ticketed because of him ? anyways I paid that ticket already and discarded the picture ... was pissed off ...

so, i could have defended it? how?
if in court then it's not worth my time as i would need to take a whole day off at work which causes me even more loss than good...

Well it's Monday again and the thread keeps on going - sort of like a certain bunny I know!

Part of my reasoning behind the original post was there seemed to be a number of different threads all dealing, in one way or another, with the red camera/speed camera issue and I was tired of looking through all the threads to see my nuget of info. ergo I was hoping one area, one thread dealing with the issue. I think this is partially successful!

That's not even close to a study, it's a slide based sales brochure.

Quite a bit of valuable information is missing. Starting at the most basic & important, where are the term definitions and explanation of the methodologies? i.e. What constitutes a "crash", how were they monitored & recorded, what percentages & types of "crashes" were likely to have been missed? What happened in 2003 at Bailey & Central? What happened in 2008 at Hixson Pike? Where is the yearly 3 crash type percentage data for either location? Where is the crash type data & yearly breakdown on the other six locations on page 14? Did I mention definitions & methodologies? This is only a start, and only covering the first half or so of the document.

If you consider something like this to be a "study" then that explains a lot to me about some of your positions. Clearly you haven't spent a lot of research time on sites like http://ntl.bts.gov/ (as I've suggested before), or you'd see what's included in a true "study".

This is a collection of graphics and selective data to support the conclusions presented (conclusions emphasized and intermixed with the graphics & selective data). ALL of the data is NOT presented here, prior to the author's conclusion and comments at the end.

I'm not saying that this isn't giving a graphic presentation of the valid conclusions of several detailed and thoughtfully implemented studies ... I'm just saying that you can't know for sure if the conclusion logic or the data & methods are flawed unless you have ALL of the data AND explanations.

Not a valid definition of taxes vs. fines (or good vs. evil). Unless you also consider fuel taxes to be a 'fine' for driving, or tax on carryout food a 'fine' for those that can't cook. Taxes, Fines, Fees .. same payer/payee.

Couldn't agree with you more. We can play the 'WHY' game for everything. Why are there locks on my car door? Why must my vehicle have a seat belt, why do I need to pass emission tests....and the why goes on.

Thank you for taking the time to read the “legislative tour” presentation given by our City Engineer. The questions you asked make it apparent that you looked at it closely. I apologize for my terminology as I should have realized that this would cause comment. Since this Legislative Tour has considerably more detail than practically all of the “studies” which are cited in articles on sites like thenewspaper.com, I made the mistaken assumption that it would be seen as having more detail and be just as acceptable as a basis for my position. However, your comments on what constitutes a proper ‘study” will, I hope, be remembered by those who would advance selectively quoted articles as “proof” that Automatic Traffic Enforcement is nothing but a revenue grab.

Your questions are good ones. For example, Where is the yearly 3 crash type percentage data? Interestingly, the 3 crash type data is mostly used because rear-end collisions often go up and the percentages are then needed to determine that - overall - the impact of collisions have been reduced. In the case of our city, collisions were down so that analysis was not required in the presentation. It is apparent that underlying data had been collected as evidenced by the graphic of Hwy 153 and Gadd Road accident types - even including exactly where within the intersection they occurred (see page 5). See also S-curves on page 6.

Bailey and Central is indeed interesting. Those cameras were installed but never activated. I think, but am not 100% certain, that they were never turned on because of public outcry back in 2000. That particular intersection had high accident rates - perhaps because Central is on the way to the regional hospital just down the road. Who know, maybe some of the accidents were by people trying to get to the emergency room and feeling like they had the “liberty” to attempt to run the red-light because of their emergency.

Even though those cameras were never activated, the very fact that they were there - and had been advertised in newspaper articles before the proposed activation date - seems to have altered driver behavior. I went on that route on the way to church each Sunday and I know I was aware of the fact that they were there and made sure I was not caught unawares by a yellow light.

The Hixson Pike charts are about what we here typically refer to as the S-curves. Total accidents have been down since the installation of the cameras but I agree that more detail would make the presentation better.

I was confused by your statement “ALL of the data is NOT presented here, prior to the author's conclusion and comments at the end.” There was no “conclusion” as such by our City Engineer. I think he hoped that the data he did show (and I agree with you that he did not show ALL the data) would demonstrate that the program was having desirable results.

Even though you say “I'm just saying that you can't know for sure if the conclusion logic or the data & methods are flawed unless you have ALL of the data AND explanations.”, do you feel that there was data left out that would have allowed you to come away with a different impression?

Taxes are not optional. Fines and fees are.

Case in point - Don't own a car or buy fuel - no license fees or fuel taxes. Don't own a phone, no taxes or fees for 9-1-1. The litany can go on and on. If you don't drive, no redlight or speed camera fines - but then stay below the trigger speed for cameras or come to a full and complete stop before the limit line and no camera fees either.

bad conclusion, you don't have sufficient data to come to that conclusion, how was the police enforcement at the intersection prior to the red light cameras, would not be surprise if it was high, they just went from a part time enforcement to a 24 hour enforcement.

I probably should keep my mouth shut since I don't have red light camera info. downloaded. But, since I live in a place that doesn't have red light cameras, if I went to a place that does have them, I think I would like to know, in order to be a little more cautious.

I know that some of those cameras will ticket you if you enter an intersection even a fraction of a second after yellow is displayed. Say I'm driving down an unfamiliar street, scanning left to right and rear view mirror in order to make sure I'm as safe as can be. Now, when I avert my eyes to a car coming up behind me, the light turns yellow. In the fraction of a second that takes, I am nearly in the intersection but the light has turned yellow. It may be unsafe to slam on my brakes and come to a stop in the intersection or cross-walk. The alternative is to get ticketed even if there is no cross traffic at all.

If I had an alert that this corner had a red light camera, I would be extra attentive to the timing of the light.

I don't think anyone would be looking for "permission" to run red lights via a red light camera poi.

Going back to the post from which the quote was taken, I want to give all of it. I wrote

I think I read you to say that you would not be surprised if the enforcement was high.

Perhaps, I misunderstand your point. What would the amount of enforcement have to do with it? If the yellow light timing being below minimum standards was not revenue driven, what was it?

I apologize for not following your comments.

The problem is that the low-tech system of traffic signals viewed by oncoming drivers who are looking at multiple hazards, is being monitored by a high-tech red light camera system that includes full-motion video.

To respond to the demands of the RLC system, drivers must put their full attention to looking at the green, or yellow, or red light, and they cannot also look at the speedometer, the actions of pedestrians who may be jaywalking, drivers who may unlawfully take the right-of-way, or following drivers who may be speeding, intent on going through a red light.

dobs108

If you are like me, I am sure you have been driving for many years. I have not felt it necessary to drive any differently near RLCs.

What would be different between an upcoming intersection with a RLC and one without?

So in these cases I've exercised my option to not pay the fees, but not an option to not pay the taxes by choosing not to drive or use a phone?

Semantics. The litany does go on and on, but it's still the same payer & the same payee in the case of taxes, fees, and fines, so the same net effect however you phrase it.

The only difference between Taxes, Fees, and Fines is that Fines are the only item that are NOT predominantly optional even when they may be unjustly assessed, unless you can convince someone with the proper authority to rescind them.

I suspect that I differ with you in that I think there are more chances and instances of unjustly assessed fines from automated systems than we are led to believe.

Here's a relevant article that could lead to a bit more of the openness needed to prove or disprove my hypothesis:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/30/court-ruling...

My hypothesis was

but that was relevant only to where I suspected Box Car and I differed, and specifically to whether automated systems do/do not result in just fines and at what percentages.

My general hypothesis about red light & speed cameras was stated someplace else in one of the site's threads. And that is; on a dollar-spent basis, the devices aren't overwhelmingly effective safety devices in and of themselves, and more thought needs to go into the best use of the current cash flow solely for roadway safety.

As far as optional, imo the only thing in life that isn't is death.

I agree with that statement. I see it all the time and I have to be a bit more careful than most, as I ride my motorcycle out there and it's nice to know where these cameras are. So I can watch out for the idiots slamming on their brakes etc..

"Even though those cameras were never activated, the very fact that they were there - and had been advertised in newspaper articles before the proposed activation date - seems to have altered driver behavior. I went on that route on the way to church each Sunday and I know I was aware of the fact that they were there and made sure I was not caught unawares by a yellow light."

This is exactly why red light camera locations in your GPS is worthwhile. If you know about them in advance, you become extra careful to be "not caught unawares by a yellow light."

That's a good example of what I meant before about more cost-effective ideas. Like dummy and rotating working cameras. Same driver/safety effect, less drain on the taxpayer & govt. wallet. Been done in the UK for years.

Intead of having dummy cameras (not activated), over here the police has to post signs under the speed limit with the statement "Photo Enforced" on routes they use any speed cameras: fixed or portable.

Same as with dummy cameras, after a while I don't think it deters people from speeding. You get used to the signs and no danger after a while, start relaxing, then months later, boom, you face an officer with a gun in his hands!

The only place Chattanooga needs cameras at are on the 24/75 merge and around Moccasin Bend and the tunnel area. Other than that it has got to be the easiest city I have driven around in years.

Still love that place.