Backlash for Red-Light Cameras Hasn’t Slowed Spread
 |
      13 years
|
In an article posted by one of the most respected polling companies, the Pew Charitable Trusts provides more discussion regarding ticket cameras.
Perhaps some of the most telling quotes from those favoring and opposing can be summed up in these two viewpoints
Hawaii state Senator Will Espero, a Democrat, hopes to start a pilot program for red-light cameras on his home island of Oahu. He thinks red-light cameras would improve public safety. Espero says he sees cars running red lights all the time, but if there were cameras, he says, motorists would recognize “yellow doesn’t mean speed up, it means slow down.”
and
But O’Scanlon, the New Jersey legislator, says proponents focus too much on violations and not enough on safety. In many intersections, lights for all directions overlap on red for one second, O’Scanlon says, so violators who cross into an intersection within a second of the light turning red are not likely to hit cross-traffic.
The primary difference between these two viewpoints hinges on the action one takes when a light changes from green to yellow. Should the driver speed up or slow down? The answer to this, for a large part, depends on the age of the driver. Those in their 40's and below will state speed up while those older will say slow down.
The key issue I have with NJ Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon's statement about is his disregard for the purpose of the all-red clearing time. Taking his statement at face value he infers a red signal doesn't mean stop, it only means stop sometimes. He states "violators who cross into an intersection within a second of the light turning red" which means I don't have to stop when the light turns red because it's OK to to enter the intersection because the other traffic is stopped.
While it is true it does take cross traffic a period of time to start moving when the light changes from red to green, what about the pedestrian at the crosswalk? Let's say the pedestrian steps off the curb at the moment the light turns red for the cross-traffic. Is the driver coming through the intersection at full (or higher) speed because they wanted to get across the intersection before the cross-traffic started going to be able to react to the appearance of the pedestrian in the cross-walk?
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/backla...
Read closely
I agree with Box Car about how O'Scanlon is missing the point about the fact that the law states that entering an intersection after the light has turned red is a violation.
Excepting those legitimate reasons like moving to clear for emergency vehicles, or traveling in a funeral procession, etc., the fact that the vehicle entered the intersection on red and did not cause an accident is beside the point.
The all red signal is one of the ways traffic engineers make an intersection safer - just like having longer yellow lights (up to a point) reduces accidents.
Consider how O'Scanlon phrases how he and his constituents feel when they are caught in a violation. He says
“People realize the government is institutionalizing a system to rip them off,” says O’Scanlon, a Republican.
"rip them off"!
Does he not realize that he is saying that he feels that the fact that his constituents have been caught violating the law is a "rip off"?
Hmm
I guess you guys aren't following the whole, Chicago/Redflex corruption scandal? There's a reason constituents are feeling like they're being ripped off. It's because they are. All red light camera companies should be investigated to make sure they're not doing the same thing as Redflex.
Of course, in your world view...
Does he not realize that he is saying that he feels that the fact that his constituents have been caught violating the law is a "rip off"?
Of course, in your world view, a violation of an inch is as bad as, and should be penalized just the same as, a violation of a mile ("figuratively speaking" since otherwise you might take that literally and claim your google searches returned no results about RLC-controlled intersections with violations of a even a half-mile, much less a mile).
are you stating
I guess you guys aren't following the whole, Chicago/Redflex corruption scandal? There's a reason constituents are feeling like they're being ripped off. It's because they are. All red light camera companies should be investigated to make sure they're not doing the same thing as Redflex.
Twix, are you stating all elected or appointed officials are corrupt?
If you are looking for someone to blame, remember every time you point your finger, three are pointing back at you. As has been stated several times before, a person's reaction to seeing a light turn yellow is, for a large part, age dependent. Younger drivers will almost universally speed up to clear the intersection while older drivers will slow down and stop.
Their reaction to the light change doesn't negate the regulation, where it says a driver must come to a full and complete stop before entering the intersection. There are some valid arguments regarding on exactly where the intersection begins and any tolerance that should be shown.
As a pedestrian in a major city I do have a problem with those drivers that rather than stop before entering the cross walk, stop so their vehicle completely blocks the cross walk forcing any pedestrians to walk out in the roadway. Funny thing about it is, it's the same age group that speeds up when the light turns yellow and don't believe they deserve a ticket for being in the cross walk let alone the intersection.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
@GoneNomad World view?
Does he not realize that he is saying that he feels that the fact that his constituents have been caught violating the law is a "rip off"?
Of course, in your world view, a violation of an inch is as bad as, and should be penalized just the same as, a violation of a mile ("figuratively speaking" since otherwise you might take that literally and claim your google searches returned no results about RLC-controlled intersections with violations of a even a half-mile, much less a mile).
I infer from your comment about my "world view" that you think that some violations of the law which - as Box Car states means "... a driver must come to a full and complete stop before entering the intersection" - should not be considered as a violation.
I indeed do not agree. I feel it is definitely a violation.
Now - having said that - I do not think that everyone should get a ticket for every violation. I hope that is what you mean also.
So, would you please give us some indication of how much leeway you would offer to violators and what guidelines you would apply in determining leeway.
I already did
So, would you please give us some indication of how much leeway you would offer to violators and what guidelines you would apply in determining leeway.
I already did, in great detail, in my last post in the previous thread about this.
Also, look here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+man...
There is no point in arguing.
The irony is that if you had the "opportunity" to live in a world where all the rules, so many of them that there are, were as strictly and exactingly enforced as you have repeatedly advocated, you wouldn't like it very much, since every time you turned around, you'd find that once again you were a violator.
Maybe you should consider moving to Singapore. It might be strict enough for you.
Let's discuss
@GoneNomad, I am not trying to argue with you. I am asking for a discussion of what would be "reasonable". I hope you will participate
I did read your post in
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28357#comment-320814
Your comments in that post are well taken. However, I am interested in whether or not opponents of red light cameras would be less negative if there were "grace periods" applied before sending tickets.
Myself, I think that .5 seconds should be the grace period unless the video showed something that an officer who might have been on-scene would have deemed dangerous.
Edit:
I just noticed that you have added to this post
The irony is that if you had the "opportunity" to live in a world where all the rules, so many of them that there are, were as strictly and exactingly enforced as you have repeatedly advocated, you wouldn't like it very much, since every time you turned around, you'd find that once again you were a violator.
Maybe you should consider moving to Singapore. It might be strict enough for you.
My response is that I have never advocated strict and exacting enforcement - in particular, never "repeatedly" as you suggest.
So, perhaps others will discuss "leeway" and "grace periods".
No way
I would not find that leeway or grace period make ticketing cameras more acceptable. They might make it more attractive to some, but once the cameras are in place, it is easy for those to be shortened or removed altogether and then the public is stuck with the cameras with little or no leeway or grace period. That is assuming the cameras are accurate in the first place, which I don't. It also doesn't solve the other problems that the cameras have (ie. ticketing the owner and not the driver is a big one). The better solution is to ban them altogether.
Leeway?
1. As in "Car stopped but front bumper 6" past stop line? Maybe
2. Car did not stop, but entered intersection on red. No way! But only if yellow duration is within fed guidelines.
I do agree with others that RLC should be abolished because safety value is still questionable.
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w
I am not interested wasting time in circular arguments
My response is that I have never advocated strict and exacting enforcement - in particular, never "repeatedly" as you suggest.
So, perhaps others will discuss "leeway" and "grace periods".
Oh no... never...
You just repeatedly state things like this:
Does he not realize that he is saying that he feels that the fact that his constituents have been caught violating the law is a "rip off"?
..to point out that if someone is caught violating the law (no matter by hoe much), they are not being ripped off. And many other similar assertions, over and over and over. You want to know where they are? Read your own damn posts!
I already went into my position in excessive detail in the post in the other thread, which you claim to have read.
I also cited (once again) the "reasonable person" concept in this thread, which is something you might want to research, as it applies to traffic enforcement (which I also already mentioned).
A "reasonable person" who happens to be a traffic cop does not issue citations for people who don't quite stop before some imaginary line that may, or may not (in many cases) coincide with the line painted on the pavement. A "reasonable person" who happens to be a conscientious motorist doesn't expect to receive a citation for a similar action. After the installation of red light cameras in the St. Louis area, many people received RLC tickets for exactly those types of actions, along with many others even more ludicrous. This also happens in plenty of other places. Faced with this widespread reality, this is why many "reasonable people" (one of whom you are not in this respect) have concluded that a big component of RLC "safety enforcement" also happens to be a better fit with revenue generation.
You can cite the 0.5 seconds "leeway" established "by law" in Virginia all you want. I will now mention for the fourth time that is absolutely not the case everywhere.
Moreover, I would never condone any system, no matter how much leeway, which can result in an arrest warrant being issued for someone who didn't pay a RLC citation when the issuing authority can't even prove that the intended recipient ever received it. Recently in the St. Louis area (where only a few of the municipalities that have RLCs will issue warrants for non-payment), this exact circumstance happened. It is for this reason that this is a fundamental, and to me, completely UNacceptable difference compared to the "normal" type of traffic enforcement where a citation is issued to the driver, on the spot.
So NO, I am not interested in "discussing" this issue with you. The problem such as it is will not be resolved by any such "discussion"" which will accomplish nothing but waste more time in additional circular arguments.
Shortened?
I would not find that leeway or grace period make ticketing cameras more acceptable. They might make it more attractive to some, but once the cameras are in place, it is easy for those to be shortened or removed altogether and then the public is stuck with the cameras with little or no leeway or grace period. That is assuming the cameras are accurate in the first place, which I don't. It also doesn't solve the other problems that the cameras have (ie. ticketing the owner and not the driver is a big one). The better solution is to ban them altogether.
@tom
I think you are making an assumption that the claims that cities have been caught "shortening" yellow lights is true. That was not the case.
There are a number of instances where the yellow lights were initially too short when cameras were installed and cities were subsequently caught and had to change them.
That was the case with the article by the National Motorist Association on March 26, 2009 titled "6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit"
see
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...
The NMA article referenced six different thenewspaper.com articles
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2269.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2068.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1759.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1621.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1122.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/670.asp
The NMA article used the word "shorten" or "shortening" 4 times. In closing the article, NMA said
Many cities avoid the bad publicity involved with shortening yellow lights by installing the cameras at intersections with inadequate yellow light times from the beginning.
However - not one of the six articles cited as "sources" for the NMA article actually used the words "shorten" or "shortening"
This lie by NMA has had a life of it's own. Whenever someone wants to make a case against cameras, this article is the most often cited.
Now, cities should not have "short" yellow lights. As spokybob just stated above "Car did not stop, but entered intersection on red. No way! But only if yellow duration is within fed guidelines", I think that the yellow interval for red light cameras should equal or exceed minimum guidelines - and there should be a two second all-red interval following that.
By the way, thenewspaper.com does have a link that says "Florida City Caught Issuing 1645 Camera Tickets On Shortened Yellow" (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/40/4019.asp) - using the word "shortened".
The article on St. Petersburg, FL makes a claim that "In St. Petersburg, Florida, the yellow time at intersections was shortened by fractions of a second for thousands of drivers, enabling the red light camera program to generate an extra $259,910 in revenue in 13 months.".
We have yet to hear whether or not any lights were "shortened". I started a thread on this subject.
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39094
I know you are unlikely to change your feeling that cameras should be banned - but I hope that you will not continue to base your feeling on the misinformation relating to any city "shortening" yellow lights.
Had some idiot almost slam
Had some idiot almost slam into me thanks to the red light camera paranoia.... hate those things. If people are breaking the law there should be real police presence to stop it, not automated machines that do nothing to prevent an accident.
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work
Why, I wonder?
...
I do agree with others that RLC should be abolished because safety value is still questionable.
Given that you are honest enough to make the statement that the safety value is "questionable" - most people here seem to reject any such claim outright - perhaps you will look at how the various studies have improved over time. I submit that, in general, they have become more and more positive.
Wikipedia's latest discussion of the effectiveness of traffic enforcement cameras says in full
Effectiveness
The town of Swindon abandoned the use of fixed cameras in 2009, questioning their cost effectiveness with the cameras being replaced by vehicle activated warning signs and enforcement by police using mobile speed cameras:[50] in the nine months following the switch-off there was a small reduction in accident rates which had changed slightly in similar periods before and after the switch off (Before: 1 fatal, 1 serious and 13 slight accidents. Afterwards: no fatalities, 2 serious and 12 slight accidents).[33] The journalist George Monbiot claimed that the results were not statistically significant highlighting earlier findings across the whole of Wiltshire that there had been a 33% reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured generally and a 68% reduction at camera sites during the previous 3 years.[51]
The 2010 Cochrane Review of speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths[52] reported that all 28 studies accepted by the authors found the effect of speed cameras to be a reduction in all crashes, injury crashes, and death or severe injury crashes. "Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time."
In January 2011 Edmonton, Alberta cancelled all 100,000 "Speed On Green" tickets issued in the previous 14 months due to concerns about camera reliability.[53][54]
According to the 2003 NCHRP Synthesis 310, "RLR automated enforcement can be an effective safety countermeasure....[I]t appears from the findings of several studies that, in general, RLR cameras can bring about a reduction in the more severe angle crashes with, at worst, a slight increase in less severe rear-end crashes.[55] However it noted that "there is not enough empirical evidence based on proper experimental design procedures to state this conclusively."
The 2010 report The Effectiveness of Speed Cameras A review of evidence by Richard Allsop concludes "The findings of this review for the RAC Foundation, though reached independently, are essentially consistent with the Cochrane Review conclusions. They are also broadly consistent with the findings of a meta-analysis reported in the respected Handbook of Road Safety Measures, of 16 studies, not including the four-year evaluation report, of the effects of fixed cameras on numbers of collisions and casualties."
About the worst that camera opponents can claim in the safety area now is that cameras might increase rear-end collisions.
I believe that safety is improved when cameras are present. That said, I find it hard to believe statements by officials that cameras are for safety reasons only. It seems clear to me that the revenue generated is quite important to municipalities.
But, I would rather have those who break the law and are caught doing so pay into municipal coffers than have my taxes increase.
Yellow light timing can be bad but....
My reference to shortened was not for yellow lights, though I thank you for bringing up yet another problem with the cameras. There are so many its hard to cover them all. My reference was just in general that if they give a grace period or leeway in order to sell the cameras, most likely it won't be too long after the cameras are introduced before they take that away to some extent because they can take more money from motorists that way. I believe they are likely to use grace periods or leeway to try and make it not seem so bad at the start to entice people into going along with it. The only real solution is to ban them.
The devil is in the details
...
I believe they are likely to use grace periods or leeway to try and make it not seem so bad at the start to entice people into going along with it. The only real solution is to ban them.
@tom,
I do not doubt that you believe such, but you are doing so without facts. If you ever happen to find any article that gives details of a municipality that installed cameras with leeway/grace periods and then removed them, please let us know.
Unless...
I read it wrong, San Diego is getting rid of them! If that is true...that's great!
"Backward, turn backward, oh time in your flight, make me a child again, just for tonight."
What?
Twix, are you stating all elected or appointed officials are corrupt?
If you are looking for someone to blame, remember every time you point your finger, three are pointing back at you. As has been stated several times before, a person's reaction to seeing a light turn yellow is, for a large part, age dependent. Younger drivers will almost universally speed up to clear the intersection while older drivers will slow down and stop.
Their reaction to the light change doesn't negate the regulation, where it says a driver must come to a full and complete stop before entering the intersection. There are some valid arguments regarding on exactly where the intersection begins and any tolerance that should be shown.
As a pedestrian in a major city I do have a problem with those drivers that rather than stop before entering the cross walk, stop so their vehicle completely blocks the cross walk forcing any pedestrians to walk out in the roadway. Funny thing about it is, it's the same age group that speeds up when the light turns yellow and don't believe they deserve a ticket for being in the cross walk let alone the intersection.
How am I stating all elected officials are corrupt? I'm not. I'm merely stating that constituents are being ripped off. And the money that's being taken from them, can potentially be used for corruption. As already has been discovered in Chicago. I'd be surprised if Redflex is around much longer. I don't know how they're going to survive a $2.03 million dollar bribe.
honestly
your kidding right?
red light cameras in Hi?
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!
see below
How am I stating all elected officials are corrupt? I'm not. I'm merely stating that constituents are being ripped off. And the money that's being taken from them, can potentially be used for corruption. As already has been discovered in Chicago. I'd be surprised if Redflex is around much longer. I don't know how they're going to survive a $2.03 million dollar bribe.
Reread your statement
I guess you guys aren't following the whole, Chicago/Redflex corruption scandal? There's a reason constituents are feeling like they're being ripped off. It's because they are. All red light camera companies should be investigated to make sure they're not doing the same thing as Redflex.
The inference is quite clear. You are painting all officials involved with cameras with the same brush you use for those involved in Chicago by claiming there has to be corruption involved in doing business with the company.
Illiterate? Write for free help.
Rear-end car accidents .... have increased since red-light camer
February 28, 2013
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/02/rear-end_accident...
"LAWRENCE — With new figures showing that rear-end car accidents at Route 1 and Bakers Basin Road have increased since red-light cameras were installed, town officials are planning to meet with the company that provides the devices and consider their options, which could include dropping out of the controversial statewide program."
~snip~
"The cameras have drawn outrage across the state from drivers and some legislators.
One legislative bill, which would have barred traffic cameras from issuing tickets for rolling right turns on red, was put on hold after much debate.
State Sen. Michael Doherty (R-Warren), who has called for removing the devices, said last week that evidence continues to grow that red-light cameras do not make dangerous intersections safer.
“It’s become increasingly clear that local officials are more interested in ticket revenues than in the unintended consequences associated with red-light cameras,” Doherty said in a news release."
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .
Stands
How am I stating all elected officials are corrupt? I'm not. I'm merely stating that constituents are being ripped off. And the money that's being taken from them, can potentially be used for corruption. As already has been discovered in Chicago. I'd be surprised if Redflex is around much longer. I don't know how they're going to survive a $2.03 million dollar bribe.
Reread your statement
I guess you guys aren't following the whole, Chicago/Redflex corruption scandal? There's a reason constituents are feeling like they're being ripped off. It's because they are. All red light camera companies should be investigated to make sure they're not doing the same thing as Redflex.
The inference is quite clear. You are painting all officials involved with cameras with the same brush you use for those involved in Chicago by claiming there has to be corruption involved in doing business with the company.
I know what I said. Unless you can find where I said everyone is corrupt, you're making the statement, I'm not. What's wrong with wanting to make sure it's not happening "everywhere?"