If I read the article correctly, city of Bellingham only studied whether a camera would increase revenue by issuing more tickets. The new study looked at whether it increased safety and/or improved traffic flow when other common fixes did not work well! I would think that should be the over-riding factor in the decision (but money won out).
-- Winston Churchill said, “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities.”
"Per the ITE collected statistics it only has the POTENTIAL to reduce at angle red-light running collisions by a less than 1 per year but INCREASE rear ends by an average of nearly 5 per year for this particular intersection."
and..
"GTC found in its review that over the course of five years, only 1 collision was specifically linked to someone running a red light. On the other hand, there were 78 REAR-END collisions -- two-thirds of the total number of accidents. Making the rear end accident situation WORSE would make the location more dangerous, not less dangerous."
But.. but.. we've all been told differently by the RLC companies and powers to be. After all.. it's all about S A F E T Y.. and not about $$$$$$$!!
Nuvi1300WTGPS
-- I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!
Can those involved in the rear-enders say the words - CLASS ACTION SUIT!!!
Fred
Alternatively the police could use the words FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE and DRIVING WITH UNDUE CARE AND ATTENTION. Then the person obeying the law could ask the police to testify in their civil suit against the person who rear ended them and received those tickets.
That study should be done before any camera is installed
That study should be done before any camera is installed.
Garmin Drive Smart 55 - Samsung Note 10 Smartphone with Google Maps & HERE Apps
I would have thought ...
... that common sense would dictate at least a minimal study to determine whether a camera is warranted at any intersection.
Nuvi 2460
Interesting differences in the studies
If I read the article correctly, city of Bellingham only studied whether a camera would increase revenue by issuing more tickets. The new study looked at whether it increased safety and/or improved traffic flow when other common fixes did not work well! I would think that should be the over-riding factor in the decision (but money won out).
Winston Churchill said, “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities.”
But We've Been Told Just The Opposite..!!
The linked article said in part..
"Per the ITE collected statistics it only has the POTENTIAL to reduce at angle red-light running collisions by a less than 1 per year but INCREASE rear ends by an average of nearly 5 per year for this particular intersection."
and..
"GTC found in its review that over the course of five years, only 1 collision was specifically linked to someone running a red light. On the other hand, there were 78 REAR-END collisions -- two-thirds of the total number of accidents. Making the rear end accident situation WORSE would make the location more dangerous, not less dangerous."
But.. but.. we've all been told differently by the RLC companies and powers to be. After all.. it's all about S A F E T Y.. and not about $$$$$$$!!
Nuvi1300WTGPS
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!
Can those involved in the
Can those involved in the rear-enders say the words - CLASS ACTION SUIT!!!
Fred
Pardon Me?
Can those involved in the rear-enders say the words - CLASS ACTION SUIT!!!
Fred
Alternatively the police could use the words FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE and DRIVING WITH UNDUE CARE AND ATTENTION. Then the person obeying the law could ask the police to testify in their civil suit against the person who rear ended them and received those tickets.