IIHS: Red-Light Cameras Improve Safety, Reduce Violations

On previous studies, it has been noted that the source of this study may have a financial interest in red-light cameras.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3392.asp

(the last paragraph details how they may benefit from the cameras)

a helluva fat profit in the bargain! And, if profit is not the over riding reason, give the monies to charity...

I am not surprized that thenewspaper.com website would imply a bias in interpretation of the results. It is a very vocal opponent to red light cameras.

Do you feel they could be objective in assessing data that demonstrates support for RLCs?

We all have our biases. Some are just more blatant about them than others.

Yes the IIHS is funded by the insurance companies so they will support a study showing a device saves their members and supporters money. But then, we also rely on their studies regarding safety when we go to select a new vehicle. How many of you can honestly raise your hand and state a vehicle's safety rating didn't play a factor in your last purchase?

One of the key points from the limited data in the article is the irrefutable fact that driver behavior was changed, not only at those intersections with cameras but at others in the area. They all saw reductions in what we can safely agree are termed "intersection incursions."

My 17 year-old van finally broke down to the point that it could no longer be repaired and I needed a car that day. I didn't have time to look at safety ratings because anything was safer than a van whose driver-side door refused to stay closed (latch mechanism broke away from inside the door).

Your general point is sound my friend. I'm simply being pedantic. But in general I have never bothered looking at industry safety ratings when purchasing a car, because those industry safety ratings would have told you a Suzuki Samurai was a safe car to drive.

Strephon, as you know, I usually assume that your comments are accurate (because that has proved true so many times), but I reacted to this one because I have subscribed to Consumers Reports forever (it seems). Back in 1988, CR rated the Samurai as "not acceptable" and was later sued by Suzuki.

I am unable to find any IIHS ratings on the Samuari. Everywhere I look it says that IIHS ratings are not available. Have I missed something?

Since you live in a city with cameras - and thus have a financial interest in the revenue that they generate - I am surprised that you would have the money go to charity (as worthy as that would be) rather than being used to pay for city services.

Without that revenue, the city would have to recover the lost revenue in some way and that would mean higher taxes for you.

I believe he was talking about the private company portion of the funds.

That may be, but since the providers of traffic cameras are, indeed, in the business to make a profit, I made the assumption that jmkthird was talking about the municipalities that employ cameras.

Thank you for your statement that you didn't look at the safety ratings before you bought the replacement for your van. I'll bet there were certain makes and models you didn't consider and what was that bias based upon?

Now, I also admit I didn't study safety ratings before we bought our new car, but the fact that some had lower ratings than others for a variety of reasons was a factor in our decision.

I was being sarcastic. The point of the matter is that I trust industry groups as much as I trust the government. In other words, I don't.

The only consideration I had was a car that worked and a dealership that wasn't too far away so I could drive the POS van there without falling out. If I had a little more time to plan, I would have avoided US vehicles in total because of their poor gas mileage compared to the imports. I also would have avoided anything larger than a 4-cylinder, again because of poor gas mileage.

Gas prices suck wind and I need to do everything to keep the cost out of pocket manageable. I got lucky that the salesman I was dealing with picked the right car for me, since I didn't pick it myself.

P.S. Your response seems a bit hostile. Why?

I didn't mean for it to sound hostile. I was really glad someone did answer the question. (And I haven't owned a major US brand car in several years myself. Although the one I'm currently driving was built here in the US.)

but who does the study makes a difference. Can the cameras be used to show who's at fault in an accident

Frankly, I wish that ALL traffic lights had cameras. Indeed I would like them at all 4 way stops as well. I am sick and tired of watching drivers risk accidents by not obeying the rules.

I very much wish drivers would follow all traffic laws, but they don't. However, for me, the remedy is not to live in a society where we are constantly under surveillance by the government to ensure compliance. With the government, it is always the case that once it starts with a 'reasonable' removal of privacy and rights, it always proceeds to misuse and abuse. I'm not interested in living in such a society where we are tracked and monitored.

Misuse and abuse by government?

You are already living in a society "where we are tracked and monitored" - but - the governments have little to do with it. Most parking lots have cameras - most stores have cameras - your smartphone tracks you - your GPS tracks you.

Surely you watch the news where we often see videos from surveillance cameras that show, say, earthquakes or tornadoes, etc. Those videos are not from "government"

I tend to agree with you on this.

Many current active cameras are single purpose and in many cases private. Government surveillance is vastly different and when we consider the NSA's Utah Data Center for storage of info, it becomes extremely alarming. Look it up .... and then try to compare government camera data (and data retention)as compared to my "sinister" security camera at home. ....

"Those who would give up "Essential Liberty" to purchase a little "Temporary Safety", deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to B. Franklin

Obviously we think differently.

I've taken moderation action on this thread. If your comment was removed you are welcome to post again providing you stay within the forum rules.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28855

~Angela

There have been times when I've realized oh shoot, I'm going faster than everybody else, so I slowed down. These are cases where locals know there is a speed cam.

So common sense and conventional wisdom would imply, that once people are used to locations of cams, they actually abide by the law.

And when we get into this money-maker shaker thing, imho with MD allowing 12 MPH over--12 MPH over, 12 MPH over, and fine of $40, conventional wisdom says that's reasonable.

40 mile limit, you have to go 52 before you get a speed cam ticket.

25 mile limit, you have to go 37 before you get a speed cam ticket.

Now in DC, I would agree that 5 mph and "new and improved lowered to $50" is not a bargain at all, since the max fine in DC is $300. Avg tick is $100, with many between $150 to $200.

imho MD sets a good example on really wanting people to slow down, and if they don't, $40 non moving violation.

Amen to that.

Noticed something new in my community. The city is putting up 'photo enforced' signs where the camera is pointed to a different direction. That is, where there is one camera pointing East, the signs are being put on the West, North & Southbound approaches to the intersection.

So does that mean that they are warning drivers North, South and West and those coming from the East that would be "caught", are not being warned?

Don't quite follow you. I guess they are trying to get people not to run yellow lights.