Speed cameras 'do not cut accidents'... they create them, study finds

 
--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

behavior

They modify behavior. If accidents were not predictable, insurance cos. wouldn't be affording the rich profits that they do.

Nothing conclusive.

That article proved nothing unless you believe everything you read.
For every article one finds that are against cameras, one can find an article for the cameras.
My city has designated this year to rebuild the 100 year plus sewer system in my neighborhood and there are more detours that makes a trip to my house an obstacle course.
There have been more crashes in my neighborhood since all the street closings so should I surmise that detours cause crashes and therefore the city should not improve the sewers so that we do not have those crashes. NO!
Lets put the blame on the drivers that caused the crashes and require them to take drivers education before they can get a license renewal.
The cameras did not cause those few crashes but drivers who were not being observant. Cameras work.

@kurzemnieks

So if I understand you right, you saying that if study is against RLCs it can't be true. But if it is in favor of RLC's than it must be true?

Very interesting theory, indeed.

And about accidents on yours area construction. It is partially fault of all mess created by street closing and detours, as they are creating unusual conditions. Other part to blame are drivers, but since licenses are virtually for anybody, not only for the "best of the best" then traffic engineering should be done with this fact on mind.

And as of your example, it doesn't fit situation with RLCs. Closes example will be somebody standing on overpass and throwing stuff on passing cars when he thinks, they broke the law. Driver reaction is similar when something falls suddenly on car and when he see yellow light on camera intersection. Just hit the brakes and pray one behind you will be quick enough.

Houston officially quit

Houston officially quit acknowledging them yesterday.

Now they have to deal with ATS over their 25 million breach of contract lawsuit.

It still amazes me when I stop at a light and have cars on both sides of me blow right through the light.

My reply to the I am not guilty

As I am traveling today across the USA from Iowa to California through Phoenix, I find that to many people tailgate and many times if I had to hit the breaks I feel that there would have to have been a rear end collision. Tailgating is against the law in most states and it is the tailgater that is responsible. If there are barriers in front of you, you according to the law must keep your car under control, observe the signs and drive carefully. I have yet to find any state that absolves you from legal consequences for driving stupid.
I would like someone prove to me that cameras caused the crashes and not the stupid drivers. There might be more crashes because of a camera but if people followed the rules of the road would there be those crashes?

not the point

kurzemnieks wrote:

I would like someone prove to me that cameras caused the crashes and not the stupid drivers. There might be more crashes because of a camera but if people followed the rules of the road would there be those crashes?

That's not the point - we have stupid drivers now, and in all likelihood we always will, so we have to deal with them. If cameras cause stupid drivers to crash, removing the cameras results in fewer crashes.

@Nomad

-Nomad- wrote:
kurzemnieks wrote:

I would like someone prove to me that cameras caused the crashes and not the stupid drivers. There might be more crashes because of a camera but if people followed the rules of the road would there be those crashes?

That's not the point - we have stupid drivers now, and in all likelihood we always will, so we have to deal with them. If cameras cause stupid drivers to crash, removing the cameras results in fewer crashes.

You are absolutely correct smile

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Try this scenario

You have 2 cars approaching an intersection. The 2nd car is tailgating the 1st. The 2nd driver is an issue because he/she is driving to close.
There is a RLC at the intersection and the 1st driver slams on the brakes to stop. He gets rear ended by the 2nd driver (who was following to close).

Who is at fault? The 2nd driver because they did not have their car under control. I would bet the police ticket the 2nd driver.

So in reality the presence of the RLC caused an accident, BUT had the "stupid" driver had is vehicle under control (not tailgating) there would have been no accident.

This, by the way has been discussed numerous times in other posts.

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

Yellow light timing

In Florida there are a lot of cameras. As more people learn about them they have a tendency to try to stop faster so as not to get caught.
As cited above, if the next car tailgates, there will be an accident. (fault does not help at that time)
If the yellow light timing was a bit longer, it would make it safer to cleat the intersection without jamming on the brakes.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

Stupid drivers

If cameras cause stupid drivers to crash, removing the cameras results in fewer crashes. This advocates letting people break the law to keep stupid people from having crashes
How many times would it take a stupid driver to have an crash before he/she learns. Sometimes learning lessons get expensive.
Red lights/stop signs cause accidents also but would you suggest we eliminate them.
I am sitting this morning in the Phoenix area watching the morning news and the text streaming below is listing the umpteen crashes on the streets and freeways. Can anyone show me where the crashes went down since they shut down their cameras.
Extending the yellow light would not help for people would think longer yellow so I can make it.

Revenue not Safety

Speed cameras are all about revenue, not safety. Speed increases the severity of damage if there is a wreck but modern cars can go much faster than allowed by speed limits without become unstable or otherwise causing an accident. Vehicles going a much different speeds on the same roadway is less safe because of lots of lane changes, each of which is a risk. In SC, the legislature had to pass a state law to stop one little town from using their speed cameras on I-95 to provide a lot, possibly most, of the funding for the town. It clearly had nothing to do with safety, only revenue. Most studies involve use of data which is not sufficient to prove anything. There are too many uncontrolled variables. Common sense will tell you, in this case, what is going on.

Short Yellow Lights

Timantide wrote:

In Florida there are a lot of cameras. As more people learn about them they have a tendency to try to stop faster so as not to get caught.
As cited above, if the next car tailgates, there will be an accident. (fault does not help at that time)
If the yellow light timing was a bit longer, it would make it safer to cleat the intersection without jamming on the brakes.

Ironically, as municipalities find that they are issuing less and less red light tickets from these cameras, they start shortening the length of the yellow light to generate more tickets. This, then, causes people to slam on the brakes faster as they discover the yellow light doesn’t give them time to get through the intersection.

--
Garmin Nuvi 1690

Agree

johnnatash4 wrote:

They modify behavior. If accidents were not predictable, insurance cos. wouldn't be affording the rich profits that they do.

I agree with this - and it was the first reply.

I have never seen any article ....

Lube-Guy wrote:

Ironically, as municipalities find that they are issuing less and less red light tickets from these cameras, they start shortening the length of the yellow light to generate more tickets. This, then, causes people to slam on the brakes faster as they discover the yellow light doesn’t give them time to get through the intersection.

To my knowledge no one has ever provided an article which claims that, as less red light tickets are issued, municipalities then reduce the yellow light timing to generate more tickets.

Since you started your sentence with "ironically", you are certainly implying that you have seen such article(s). Would you share them with us please?

Speed cameras are all about revenue, not safety.

Speed cameras are the same as radar guns but without the policeman behind it. They both do the same job but cameras are cheaper for the municipalities for they do not require hourly pay, insurance, retirement and vacation, and they work 24/7 so in a sense cameras are about money.
That officer behind the radar gun costs more to write a ticket after you add wages, radar gun and maintenance, police car and maintenance plus the dispatchers time looking up the license etc.
Several times every year in Des Moines they set up radar on the north end of the city in coordination with the county and state police. They start after the rush hour and end just before rush hour out to avoid crashes. If one is listening to a scanner, the radar operator is heard saying the model of the car and then "the one that just hit the breaks" which can only mean that the person was speeding. The first time they did it they were only stopping people doing over 70mph in a 55mph zone because they could not keep up.
If one does not like red light and speeding fines then drive within the law and you will not be helping the city treasury.
If one was to really believe that the city is shortening the yellow lights time then one should take a movie camera and film non camera intersection lights and compare them to red light intersections or film the lights where they intend to be and later see if they are the same. Visual proof would keep someone from changing back when presented with the facts

Yellow Light Timing

jgermann wrote:
Lube-Guy wrote:

Ironically, as municipalities find that they are issuing less and less red light tickets from these cameras, they start shortening the length of the yellow light to generate more tickets. This, then, causes people to slam on the brakes faster as they discover the yellow light doesn’t give them time to get through the intersection.

To my knowledge no one has ever provided an article which claims that, as less red light tickets are issued, municipalities then reduce the yellow light timing to generate more tickets.

Since you started your sentence with "ironically", you are certainly implying that you have seen such article(s). Would you share them with us please?

The are plenty of articles of such activity if you do a google search on it. One such article is at:
http://naturaltreasure.net/scameras/?p=1648. A quote from the article is, "The first southern New Jersey municipality to issue a red light camera ticket admitted last week that it issued 12,000 tickets worth $1 million at an intersection where the yellow light time was illegally short."

In Ohio, there were a number of municipalities that were caught with illegally short yellow lights, and were fined by the state and ordered to lenghten the yellow light to state minimimum time. Several of those municpalities then had ballot issues to ban the cameras and every one of them passed. One town that was investigated was Heath, which had 5 intersections with red light cameras that had abnormally short yellow lights -- they increased the timing to meet state law, and as far as I know, they still have the cameras.

Another lawsuit filed about the timing is at http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/8779779. This one has not been settled yet, but an interesting quote in that article -- "Unlike some communities, the Town of Cary does not financially profit from the (red-light camera) program," Moran said in a statement. "Ours is and has always been about safety, not making money." -- really makes a believer out of me! Ha!

Yes, Virginia, red light cameras are for your safety; they aren't about making money!

--
Garmin Nuvi 1690

Remove ing the cameras?

I think the ydo help. People will get used to them just like when a new traffic light is installed or a mew stop sign, etc. Usually the people who are against them are the ones who got caught speeding. wink

@lube-guy

Lube-Guy wrote:

The are plenty of articles of such activity if you do a google search on it.
...
Yes, Virginia, red light cameras are for your safety; they aren't about making money!

Thank you for your response and the articles. I added two of them to my database.

However, these articles are not supportive of your statement that

"as municipalities find that they are issuing less and less red light tickets from these cameras, they start shortening the length of the yellow light to generate more tickets"

I indeed did do an exhaustive Google search looking to see if I could come up with any article that would support your above statement but could not find any.

I can not imagine, if any city were found to shorten yellow lights in the face of declining revenues, that thenewspaper.com and the National Motorist Association would not latch onto it. Surely someone on this site would have provided a link to it.

I am aware of a number of instances where cities have been found to have yellow light intervals that did not meet standards set either by state law of the guidelines of the ITE. I have commented on such in other threads.

However, back to my original request. Are you able to provide any links to situations where a municipality has been faced with declining revenues and subsequently shortened the yellow timings?

So in reality tailgating car caused the fender bender

pwohlrab wrote:

You have 2 cars approaching an intersection. The 2nd car is tailgating the 1st. The 2nd driver is an issue because he/she is driving to close.
There is a RLC at the intersection and the 1st driver slams on the brakes to stop. He gets rear ended by the 2nd driver (who was following to close).

Who is at fault? The 2nd driver because they did not have their car under control. I would bet the police ticket the 2nd driver.

So in reality the presence of the RLC caused an accident, BUT had the "stupid" driver had is vehicle under control (not tailgating) there would have been no accident.

This, by the way has been discussed numerous times in other posts.

It wouldn't matter if the camera was there or not. Car number 2 rear ended car one, there really is nothing to talk about, car two was tailgating. So the RLC didn't cause anything, the careless driver in car 2 did. Who's to say car 1 wouldn't have slammed on it's breaks on a yellow anyway, with or without a camera.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

@Bobdee

As I read what your response is, I can see I was not really clear. Others will argue that the RLC caused the accident. That is far from the truth.
What if the 1st driver slammed on the brakes because a pedestrian started to cross?
You are correct, it would not matter, the 2nd driver was to close. He/she is the cause.
That was the point I was trying to make but I can see was not clear enough.

BobDee wrote:
pwohlrab wrote:

You have 2 cars approaching an intersection. The 2nd car is tailgating the 1st. The 2nd driver is an issue because he/she is driving to close.
There is a RLC at the intersection and the 1st driver slams on the brakes to stop. He gets rear ended by the 2nd driver (who was following to close).

Who is at fault? The 2nd driver because they did not have their car under control. I would bet the police ticket the 2nd driver.

So in reality the presence of the RLC caused an accident, BUT had the "stupid" driver had is vehicle under control (not tailgating) there would have been no accident.

This, by the way has been discussed numerous times in other posts.

It wouldn't matter if the camera was there or not. Car number 2 rear ended car one, there really is nothing to talk about, car two was tailgating. So the RLC didn't cause anything, the careless driver in car 2 did. Who's to say car 1 wouldn't have slammed on it's breaks on a yellow anyway, with or without a camera.

--
Nuvi 2460LMT.

Yellow Light is not the issue

RLC camera will only take picture when the light is red and a car is passing the stop line.

Ideally, the right thing to do is to prepare to stop when you see the yellow light when you have not passed the stop line. if drivers don't follow this simple safety rule, either rear-end accident will likely to happen when yellow light time is too long or T-bone a crossing car when yellow light time is short.

Thinking of beating the light? Ticket or accident, your choice.

BTW, those old, old car drivers love it very much to get hit from behind real hard, so people who hit them will have to buy them a newer car. It's perfect trap.

Lube-Guy wrote:
Timantide wrote:

In Florida there are a lot of cameras. As more people learn about them they have a tendency to try to stop faster so as not to get caught.
As cited above, if the next car tailgates, there will be an accident. (fault does not help at that time)
If the yellow light timing was a bit longer, it would make it safer to cleat the intersection without jamming on the brakes.

Ironically, as municipalities find that they are issuing less and less red light tickets from these cameras, they start shortening the length of the yellow light to generate more tickets. This, then, causes people to slam on the brakes faster as they discover the yellow light doesn’t give them time to get through the intersection.

I totally agree. Notice the

I totally agree. Notice the article is from England. I've driven over there and it's amazing how many cameras there are over there. It makes you slow down but when you see one your first response is to slamm on the brakes.

Here is another "short yellow light" article

Cameras not able to meet guidelines ..

twix wrote:

http://www.kmov.com/community/blogs/reporters-blog/Red-light-cameras-called-into-question-over-short-yellow-lights-128108363.html

Cameras not able to meet guidelines should be disabled until they do would be my opinion.

The article says:
Federal guidelines suggest a minimum of three seconds for a yellow light to clear an intersection. City leaders tell me each signal in St. Louis should be set for a four-second yellow. I timed it myself and found that the light Rick ran has a yellow just shy of three seconds..

The short lights are the result, according to officials, of an old mechanical system. Still, I fail to see why the mechanics cannot be set to be the proper yellow. Assuming they can not, then the red-light cameras at such intersections should be disabled until the newer digital systems can be installed.

Further, seems to me that tickets given at short yellow intersections should be reviewed.

maybe.

maybe.

--
Nuvi 360, OS X Lion 10.7