Top 10 Red Light Crashes in Missouri

Are the red light cameras really working? With 250,000 violations within 2 1/2 years, it doesn't sound like it is. The Top 10 crashes show that red light cameras do diddly squat in preventing PEOPLE FROM RUNNING RED LIGHTS. How many times do people go through red lights without causing an accident? Probably a lot more than the Top 10 crashes!!!! Let's see, Top 10 crashes, 250,000 violations. WOW! That's quite a big gap. This is how the cameras get installed, and bring in lottery size winnings to those that control them.

Haven't been out that way since March, but to answer the question, yes, red light cameras are really working. It's a pretty simple concept, light turns red, cameras arm, car goes over the loops, flash goes off, and ticket comes in the mail.

Okay, I guess I didn't make my point, and have to ask it in a more clear and concise way.

Are red light cameras really working in the sense that it's preventing people from running red lights?

A good look at this question is how many people got caught twice or more running the same light. Unless one is a slow learner it will only take one learning lesson to keep one from running it again. This does not mean the person will not run a light somewhere else but once he/she finds the wallet getting lighter it might get the person to figure out one equals the other.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Same kind of question as the cameras don't prevent anything, they just record what they see.

By this logic, we should stop writing speeding tickets or, for that matter, enforcing other such laws. The inability to totally stop all violators is not a reason to stop enforcement.

I agree with tomkk's observation.

twix is opposed to any kind of Automated Traffic Enforcement and attempts to influence others to adopt his position.

If traffic cameras indeed did not do anything to reduce violations, I would think that twix could produce statistics (particularly from thenewspaper.com) showing that violations did not go down after installation of ATE. However, of all of the studies that I have read, I do not recall ever seeing a comment in any study that said that violations increased on average (although it would certainly be possible that isolated camera locations might have).

tomkk, It's not enforcement. It's not an officer writing a ticket. It's not even a ticket. It doesnt' matter who's driving the car. See the difference?

jgermann, You are pro red light camera and do everything you can to influence people to adopt your position. Your point is?

When have I EVER quoted, linked, or even mentioned thenewspaper.com? And as far as providing statistics, I'm going by the link provided in this thread. Did you even watch the video? I've chosen to focus on that. Until anyone can explain how 250,000 violations are possible, with only "10 crashes" and still think red light cameras are a great idea, I'd love to hear it. I never said anything about crashes INCREASING. I was comparing the information provided; 250,000 violations vs. the top 10 crashes.

Of course there's a difference, but simply being different doesn't, in itself, make it wrong. "Enforcement" simply requires a duly constituted authority. That doesn't necessarily have to be one that we personally approve of, just one that's legal. That's what is being argued in the courts as we speak. The cities think they have the "duly constituted authority", folks who seemingly want more "latitude" at intersections think they don't. Although there are quite a number of individual RLC citations that have been dismissed for various reasons, as far as I know, the courts generally seem to be siding with the cities re. legality of the RLC concept.

As far as I'm personally concerned, the only real legitimate objection to RLCs is the profit motive ON THE PART OF THE COMPANIES THAT INSTALL THEM who, as I understand it, are the ones who generate the citations and receive a percentage of the fine. That, and the contract provisions between the cities and those companies, needs fixing.

I did watch the video.

I take note that the name of the video is Top 10 Red Light Crashes in Missouri. My understanding is that the video showed what someone considered the "top ten" crashes of who knows how many. Obviously, there were some rearend crashes because the video specifically mentions such crashes.

Comparing the "top ten" crashes against the number of violations is not appropriate. All we know is that it was at least 10 plus the number of rearend crashes. It could have been the top 10 of 25,000 front-end crashes. Nowhere is the total number of crashes mentioned.

I never said anything about "crashes INCREASING" either. Rather I spoke of whether you could show that VIOLATIONS might have increased. I hope you would agree that, if the number of violations were substantially reduced, then one might conclude that the ATE was producing results in the right direction.

Your last paragraph is what I have a problem with. Not in the sense that I don't agree with you, but that is exactly what I find the most glaring problem with red light cameras. You make a mistake, and other people profit from it.

Let's go back a decade or two, to before red light cameras. Whenever there was an accident caused by someone running a red light, a ticket was most definitely issued. Someone was found at fault. Now, we punish everyone, even if no accident occurred. Even if someone did not stop precisely where the white line is, come to a complete stop before turning right on red, etc. Yes, technically they're breaking the law. So charge them $100?

Okay, I meant to type, "violations increasing." I never said that. I didn't imply it either.

The point in all of this is, they're using sensationalism to promote the use of red light cameras. With a $25,000,000 profit, of course they're going to do whatever they can to keep the cameras rolling.

If you notice, the Senator who spoke against the cameras was caught on one.
We have a lot of cameras in Florida, and a lot of friends have told me that thay now think twice before running a stop light. They don't want to get caught on camera.
So as ar as i am concerned, yes they work.
Have a safe and healthy holidaay season.

Many people use the argument that companies generate tickets so that they can get a percentage of the fines. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the cameras were legal so the cities have the right to install them. The company that installed them in DSM only get $25 for each ticket paid. In October 4414 speeding tickets on the interstate were issued (11 miles per hour or more over the limit) but in November 3656 tickets were issued or if those fines are paid the company will get $18950 less then the month before.
According to the records of the 8000+ tickets issued, the judge who hears the complaints reversed only 22 of them so far.
There is no way a company can change the speed process and increase revenue and since obviously people have learned where the cameras are and slowed down, both the city and company will get less. They could lower the limit from 11mph over to 7mph over or put another group of cameras further down the road to catch the ones who speed up after the first cameras.

We can never be sure how many accidents are prevented when RLC are installed. The politicians and Redflex only guess.

... and kind of agree with you. The idea that someone gets a citation for having the front wheels on the line or not quite coming to a stop before turning right on red, I think, is fundamentally a misapplication of the law, yet I know that happens. There needs to be a judgement involved that, previously, was provided by police officers. I agree with you, that needs to be fixed but lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Fix the problems, don't eliminate a technology that has the possibility of improving a bad situation.

Also, the victims of the accident would probably disagree that tickets are only appropriate if there's an action, if I understood you correctly. Enforcement of laws such as these are intended to prevent accidents, not just punish those who cause one.

As I was writing this, I was just imagining what the discussions would have been like back in the 50's when the speed radar gun was first used if they would have had the internet. I'll bet those discussions would have been quite similar: giving enforcement an unfair advantage over us poor folks just trying to get from here to there ...

In Denver, local news is reporting you do not have to pay the tickets and that the only way a ticket is valid is if you sign for it.

No, they are not.

Many cities use the same excuse, that they are be9ing installed for safety reasons, however, statistics show that the intersections are not any safer.

Some municipalities have removed them because of the lack of improved safety, however, other are falsely claiming safety and not showing the results. I believe these are the municipalities that are in it for revenue generation.

Just look at Denver, I read several weeks ago where they are now handing out tickets if the nose of your car crosses over the white line... they don't car about safety, they want to generate revenue.

No, they are not working when it comes to safety. Besides, now that the cameras are up, would you not still look to make sure no one is blowing a red light or do you put your faith in government and assume everyone will not blow the light and it's safe for you to proceed through the intersection as soon as you get6 the green light?

I think we all know the answer to that one!

The argument against cams is about as strong as the argument against wearing seatbelts. Like saying ATMs shouldn't have cams, Wal Mart shouldn't have cams covering the parking lot, etc.

Again, it's plain and simple. To show a person ran a red light, there has to be a picture of the vehicle either at the line, or having not reached the line, and a timestamp showing that the light has been red for say 1.x sec. Then there is a subsequent pic of the vehicle continuing into the intersection, also with a timestamp.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE SUCH A PIC WHEN A VEHICLE WENT THROUGH ON YELLOW, or green.

Do kids shoplift today, the same way that kids did in 1984? Of course not, the risk v. reward isn't there. It's the kids who get caught, who will lawyer up and claim their privacy was violated, and for whatever reason, their parents and some national organizations will fund their legal defense. It's truly bizarre.

Can you prove it was the Senator? It showed the car, not the driver.

Just really, how many people drive your car?

of red light camera tickets are issued for drivers who don't come to a complete stop before turning right on red. Clearly that's more of a revenue issue then a safety issue.

Good chance a cop wouldn't have even bothered to pull the car over.

Techically, lights, especially when there red are for honest, law-abidding citizens. It's upto the individual if they want to follow it.

@lewc - I completely agree that drivers should be give some leeway about how complete a stop they made before turning right on red. I think camelriders was also referring to turn right on red when talking about the white line. In my opinion what should be used in determining whether to approve a ticket should be video that showed the presence of pedestrians.

When you quoted the one-third figure, were you making a general statement or referring to some specific city or cities?

For those interested, there is a good analysis of the pitfalls of Automated Traffic Enforcement - because of the profit motives of the camera companies themselves. http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/tax--budg...

What is needed is reasonableness in the decisions to forward a "literal" traffic infraction to the person owning the vehicle.

But that could slow down the avalanche of money the cities are making.

Having talked to the police captain in charge of the red light camera program near Washington DC I was informed the guidelines in place for their department was about 8 MPH. That is if yo slowed for the light and went through at less than about 8 MPH you probably got a pass. He said it's the really egregious ones where they roll through without really trying to slow down they target.

It all comes down to how the local department wants to handle the ticket. I'll lay odds that most departments responsible for signing the tickets all have leeway they give. Now before you come out of the woodwork, read that last sentence again - and carefully this time.

Picture one, a car before the stop line, or at the stop line, with the red light having been solid red for 1.x secs.

Picture two, the car having gone into the intersection on red, with the red light having been solid red for 1.x to 3.x secs.

Picture three, the license plate of the vehicle.

When a car doesn't run a red light, or proceeds on yellow, picture one, and consequently 2 and 3 do not exist. Logically, there is no ticket.

Several.

Since many municipalities of red light cameras do not require ticketing of the driver, it does create a slight problem. This being one of them.

And as far as proving it wasn't the Senator driving the car, I wasn't the one saying he got caught. How on earth would I know? I was merely pointing out another reason why red light cameras are set up for money making purposes.

I'm using the Senator's car rolling through a red light in comparison with what you're saying.

After watching the video several times, I noticed the light was yellow, and changed to red at the last second, just as the car was at the white line.

It's really hard to tell how fast the car went through the turn because they stop the video twice. It doesn't look reckless. That's my observation.

There are no pedestrians.

In light of all three areas for giving leeway, the car still got a ticket.

Right, same as with a parking ticket ...

Right, because a parking violation is the same thing as a moving violation. In that case, why don't we ticket the car for drunk driving?

That's what I need when I read this topic. Just think if everyone stopped at the red lights. No profit for anyone and they will be out of business.

But to many drivers are in a hurry to catch the next red light or they don't believe the red light really means STOP.

This could go on forever!

A red light infraction captured by camera isn't a moving violation that generates points, entries to your driving record and raises your insurance premiums.

Yes, I am aware of that. You're basically reiterating that it's not a moving violation. Because on the one hand, if an officer catches a driver doing it, it is a moving violation. But if a camera catches a car doing it, it isn't. Am I missing anything? Oh, I know. Your response to my response about your "leeway" post.

So it's better to get a red light camera ticket than one by a cop because its not on your record, lol.

That's one for the camers's. lol.

Yeah, because paying $100 for going through a red light at the last second, or turning right on red without coming to a complete stop, at the white line, or for three seconds, is something that should be enforced to the letter of the law. Oh, wait. Nothing is being enforced because it's not a penalty against your driving record. LOL! It's just a money generating scheme! HAHA! WIN!

Before red light cameras most drivers approached stop lights thinking of running the light on the yellow.

After red light cameras most drivers approached the stop light with a plan on stopping on the red if they know about a red light camera.

Will it take a lot of tickets before stopping on the red is the concern of most drivers approaching any light. Most certainly I'm betting on 50 million red light tickets. It takes a lot of training to improve driving habits.

... is not a moving violation. The car is ticketed and they leave it up to you to figure out who's going to ante up the fine. Same with RLC tickets ...

Can't win with you because you just know it all!!

No more on this topic, my popcorn just finished.

If it's the same as a parking ticket then, why is the fine for a red light camera much higher?

Have you noticed how a moving violation became a "non-moving" violation, even though it is a moving violation, to make it easier to collect money? And that's why your argument of, "it's a parking ticket" doesn't hold water. Just because some laws were tweaked, doesn't make it right.