Red-Light Cameras Reducing Texas Crashes

If I remember correctly you didn't believe the report from the Houston PD that showed crashes increased across the city when the cameras were off either. But then i could be wrong...

The Texas Transportation Institute study referenced in the Fox Article is described in another article at
http://tti.tamu.edu/2011/08/01/safety-benefits-of-red-light-...

This article references a link to the full PDF of the study.

The article makes this statement
In addition to assessing the cameras’ effectiveness according to roadway type, researchers also compared crash frequencies at different intervals before and after cameras were installed. The examination showed a 23 percent drop from one year before to one year after cameras were put into use. The two- and three-year comparisons reflected reductions of 27 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

Why not?

You may be right.

Not enough info. It could just be the traffic is less because of the economy or several other things they are not revealing.

I hope you will take the time to read the TTI study by following the link to the PDF. It will take you a while but I believe you will agree, after doing so, that the authors were very careful.

The PDF does have some comments on yellow light timing that I found interesting. Look for these comments starting on page 23 of the study.

They've slso shown in other studies that increasing the yellow light by 1 second even more greatly reduces crashes then ANY camera study.

I bet this was funded by the camera manufacturer.

Did you save any links to those "other studies"?

Studies have shown that increasing the yellow times from, say, 3 seconds (or less) to 4 seconds has a significant effect on crashes. See Effect of Yellow Interval Timing on Red-Light Violation Frequency at Urban Intersections by Bonneson at Texas Transportation Institute. The Texas A&M University System

You seem to be suggesting that accidents in Texas could have been reduced MORE at camera intersections by increasing yellow times. I hope you have already gone to the PDF of this study and read the commentary on yellow times I pointed this thread to earlier. As I recall, the yellow times were 4 seconds or more at each intersection. Are you suggesting that increasing the yellow times from the starting 4 seconds to, say, 5 seconds would have reduced crashes more than the presence of cameras did?

If so, can you point us to studies that would support that suggestion?

Don't look at the camera manufacturers, look at the politicians that lobbied to bring them in.

One thing about statistics, they can be made to look good or bad - depending on who and how they are used.

The better question for local texan's is, when can I see a refund in my property taxes as a result of the increased safety and revenue?

If they reduce accidents, why are some states starting to take them out?

Well, that's one of the drawbacks of camera enforcement, isn't it?

Once a camera is installed at an intersection the yellow light timing is no longer an environment/performance based question for traffic engineers to solve. Yellow (and all red) light timing now becomes a political issue for politicans to decide.

City Councils must now review and approve the light's timing changes; so that the camera operator's contract is not violated, and revenue from the camera is not reduced.

Humm...knowing that future timing changes at these camera intersections are now a decision for politicians, I wonder how many city council members have any real experience in traffic engineering?

Isn't that what eventually brought Russia to it's knees? Politicians making the decisions about everything from toilet paper thickness, to crop yeilds, to the color of next seasons sweaters on the shelves?

Of course I'm sure if you asked them, all their decisions were "scientifically" based, too.

I'd be intersted in knowing what types of accidents rlc's claim to reduce? Are these fender benders or fatalities etc?

I would have been more comfortable had you asked why municipalities (as opposed to states) were starting to take cameras out, as it is really certain jurisdictions that are backing off.

Municipalities were told that they could improve safety and generate revenue in the process. What looked like a win-win situation at first has not turned out to be such.

There are a number of reasons, but one of the most damaging is that municipalities often have to share revenues with the state but the state does not participate in paying the company that installed the cameras. This means the municipality does not get enough funds to balance their city budget. So, regardless of whether public safety is diminshed by the removal of the cameras, removal is what has to happen.

Some municipalities did not think through the size of the fines as well as the severity of the various offenses. Whenever people are guilty of truly minor infractions - say, turning right on red but not stopping before the white line, or rolling right turns on red when there was really no danger to cars or pedestrians - they were justifiably up in arms. We have often commented on this site about the fact that there are many traffic infractions for which an officer who pulled you over would have let you go with a warning. Someone may describe an instance where they ran a red light, were stopped by an officer, and were subsequently let go with only a warning, but I would find that hard to believe.

When a city tries to maximize fines as above, citizens will and should react negatively. The fine should fit the offence.

Looking from another side, many people do not like the fact that they are so easily caught breaking the law. They become a voice against traffic cameras because it interferes with their right to be in a hurry. They become members of the National Motorist Association and read thenewspaper.com looking for reasons they can selectively pass on to their friends to get them also opposed to cameras.

You illustrate this by asking not "if they increase safety" but "if they reduce accidents". Readers of thenewspaper.com know that cameras have been shown to almost always increase rear end accidents. What is not reported by camera opponents (and in particular by thenewspaper.com) is that t-bone crashes decrease and, because t-bones are the most dangerous and result in most of the fatalities, overall safety is improved.

Those cities who are removing cameras for budget reasons or because of citizen referendums need to step back and recall the words of that great philosopher, Pogo. "We have met the enemy and he is us"

A couple of years ago I was driving in an unfamiliar town when I accidentally ran a redlight. I did not see the traffic signal and did not know that I ran the light until someone in the car with me yelled out: "You just ran a red light!" I looked in the rear view mirror and saw the red light and a police car pulling out of a driveway behind me.

I stopped, admitted that I had run the light, and told the officer that I did not see the traffic signal but a friend in the car had confirmed my error. I must have looked as shook up as I felt. He accepted my explantation and told me to be more careful driving in his town. I got no ticket, just the verbal warning to be more careful.

I know the story may be hard to believe, but it is true.

I don't drink and drive. I don't intentionally break traffic laws, including running red lights. I don't consider myself an habitually distracted driver. Yet, I also know that sometimes real accidents happen and that is why I prefer an officer - not a camera - for enforcement.

Thanks for the story, especially admitting that you had violated the law - and that another in the car saw that you had run the red light.

Had you actually caused an accident, you would have been cited for running the red light.

Had there been a camera there, you would have likely received a ticket (I say likely because there are some jurisdictions where the officer reviewing the video "forgives" drivers who enter the intersection just after the light turned red - say within half a second).

Which is exactly why lengthening the yellow has only a limited affect on reducing the number of citations. As drivers learn the yellow is longer, more will try to "beat the light" by going through on yellow.

The following is from page 27 of the Texas Study we have been discussing in this thread.

The yellow change interval must be long enough to avoid creating a dilemma zone which is defined as a condition where the driver can neither stop nor proceed through the intersection safely. Conventional analysis of the dilemma zone problem is adequate to select a reasonable yellow interval duration, however it ignores critical issues such as: driver expectations; drivers estimated arrival time at the intersection; presence and spacing of multiple vehicles using the roadway; different driver reaction times and operator capabilities; and varying speeds that different vehicles travel. Unfortunately these conditions are not consistent across all drivers and as such, variability between these conditions impacts the ability to create a specific standardized yellow interval time for all intersections and conditions.

While programming correct yellow intervals provide some safety benefits for the intersection, the yellow interval timing approach is effective only if all motorists drive at the same speed and use similar driver capabilities. Since many operators drive at differing range of speeds and react to things in different ways, there is no singular correct or safe duration for the yellow interval duration. Unfortunately, some driver dilemma will continue to exist regardless of what yellow interval time exists.

Somewhere just recently I read that a yellow timing of over 5.5 seconds was deemed not to be effective exactly because of driver dilemna.

The above couches the same sentiment in why increasing the length of a yellow light is effective only for a short period of time.

They are correct regarding the dilemma or decision zone as once you reach a certain point the ability of a driver to make a decision becomes almost impaired. The ITE formula of approximately 1 second per 10 MPH of speed is fairly close even when you take the slope of the roadway into consideration. That's one reason you are beginning to see more of the semaphore lights warning drivers at least a quarter mile before entering the decision zone of a pending light cycle on those roadways with speeds near 50.

I've never heard that. Do you have proof?

I will have to do a better job of indexing my collection of articles relating to Automated Traffic enforcement. I have saved a number of articles that were put out by police departments describing how they issued tickets but I am not quickly finding them.

I did find one article that told that Albuquerque has a .1 second forgivemness.

Another article (that I saved the link to) is for Alexandria at 1/2 second
http://www.alextimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/red-lights-camera-...

I did a Google search for "tickets forgive red light" and "grace periods of up to" and got these links.

http://floridadrivers.com/red-light-cameras-florida-st.html

http://ticketbusters.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/short-red-time...

http://www.seegerweiss.com/personal-injury/auto-accidents/ca...

http://www.squidoo.com/my-creation-of-red-light-camera-

Here's an editorial from the Washington Times that sums-up what the camera companies are up to:

Red-light cameras are a danger to road safety and destructive to the legal system’s presumption of innocence. Add to this list a new complaint: They are destructive of democracy itself.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/8/judicial-cash...

Similar "studies" have little validity. They only deal with accidents before and after a given time on their selected intersections.

It turns out that there has been a general decrease in intersection accidents all over the nation. It is suspected that it is due to the high unemployment rates lessening job commuting; the reduced travel for salespersons and small businesses; reduced taxi and limo services; reduced trucking services, lessened vacations and sight-seeing tours, and many other reasons. Also, newer anti-lock braking systems decrease accidents, as evidenced by insurance rate reductions for same. You don't see any rate reductions for drivers in cities with red light cameras.

Additionally, due to high unemployment rates, more and more drivers are driving without insurance. This is causing them to drive more carefully, because they can't pay for accident claims or hospital bills. Some areas of the country have 1 in 4, or more, drivers without insurance.

If any of the accident reductions were true, you would see a reduction in insurance rates. I'm not from Missouri, but you can still, "Show me".

These studies done by colleges remind me of the bogus conclusion of another college study - that the worse your credit rating is, the worse that you drive a vehicle. My neighbor had her house repossessed, and she hasn't noticed any loss of driving skills, but up went her insurance rates anyway. It was more costly for insurance companies to track driving statistics of individuals, so they jumped on the band wagon when someone stretched a study to use statistics maintained by someone else, no matter how silly. Same with red light cameras - it's all for the money - period, no exceptions.

And yet, the latest comprehensive study concludes that cameras save lives. In case you have not read the study, here is the abstract:

2011 IIHS Study: “Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities”

Conclusions: Red light camera enforcement programs reduce the citywide rate of fatal red light running crashes and, to a lesser but still significant extent, the rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections. Cities wishing to reduce fatal crashes at signalized intersections should consider red light camera enforcement.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions - as the editorial demonstrates without citing any sources - but not to their own facts.

By the way, there is another thread which has been discussing the fact that Houston accidents went up while the cameras were off. There has been no study done, but if Red-light cameras are a danger to road safety , one would have expected accidents to go down.

I was glad to see someone comment on factors that are important to studies concerning the impact of traffic enforcement camera. I provides an opportunity to point out that studies that are showing that cameras increase overall safety (with due note that most studies also find that rear-end accidents increase) control for the very factors that SkywayTraveler mentions.

Here are comments from IIHS on their 2004 study of Oxnard:

The objective of the Oxnard study was to estimate the impact of red light camera enforcement on crashes in one of the first U.S. communities to employ such cameras. Prior research in Oxnard (as well as in Fairfax, Virginia) found that red light cameras reduced red light violations by about 40 percent at both intersections equipped with cameras and signalized intersections in the same communities not equipped with cameras. Because of this generalized effect of photo enforcement on driver behavior, it is inappropriate to use signalized intersections in the same community not equipped with cameras as controls for camera-equipped sites. Doing so would produce biased estimates of crash effects associated with red light camera enforcement. Instead the Institute chose to control for a wide range of external influences affecting crash counts at signalized intersections (e.g., traffic volume, economic conditions, population growth, weather conditions, and driver licensing laws) by monitoring crashes at intersections without traffic signals in the same community. This allows researchers to separate changes in crash counts at signalized intersections, which are targeted by red light cameras, from general crash trends in the same community. In addition, the methods of the Oxnard study incorporated crash data for the same time periods for signalized and nonsignalized intersections in three comparison cities in California without red light cameras. Incorporating these data confirmed similarities in the relationship between crashes at signalized and nonsignalized intersections outside Oxnard and thus strengthened the statistical significance of the method.

see http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1034.pdf

It is correct that there has been a slight downward trend in motor vehicle accidents from 10.9 million in 2004 to 10.2 million in 2008. However, I am unable to find any statistics that address "intersection accidents". If someone knows of a source, I would appreciate your letting us know.

It would seem that the IIHS studies cannot be called flawed based on the objections raised by SkywayTraveler.