Pima County, Arizona turning off speed cameras

That is some good news!

Does revenue have to do with anything? That would be like a police officer saying, sigh, it's just a $140 fine, I make $90/hour so it's just not worth pulling that guy over. One thing has nothing to do with the other. It sends the wrong message to law breakers. Op's link, however, did not mention revenue or lack thereof.

was discussed on the local TV reports as the reason why the contract was not renewed.

I posted a thread on Monday to a channel 4 local station article and it appears that they had no problem with the areas with speed cameras not seeing the same decrease in accidents as areas without them until it was no longer a money maker.

Money first then safety second!
if you go to the link in that thread you will see these quotes:

"According to Cornelio the current costs outweigh the revenue."

"With that in mind, the county began to explore whether or not the cameras have been effective and transportation officials found the answer is no.

While the crash rate for the entire Pima County road system declined by 19% since the start of the photo enforcement program, the three year crash rate for the eleven photo enforcement locations declined by only 13%."

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/41849

Not the experience of Washington, DC.
They seem to be making money hand over fist!

Fred

It has everything to do with it. If the people running the cameras have to pay for it, it's not worth it to them. Hence, turning the cameras off. If it's profitable, the cameras stay.

that these cameras are not for safety but rather to collect $$. Yes you have to run a redlight to get TAXED but if it is soley for safety they should be installed at every single intersection and cost shouldn't factor into the equation at all unless excessive. Alas, when they don't make the $$ the safety issue dries up pretty fast.

What's NOT about money nowadays...?

RLC are touted as safety issues for the public and not revenue generators when the reality is in almost all cases if the revenue is not generated they take em out.
Just be honest and say they're where they are to make money!

"Several supervisors noted that while the new proposal from ATS had merit, the contract never lived up to county expectations. Citations peaked in 2010, with drivers adjusting their daily commute to either avoid the cameras or slowing down while passing the fixed locations."
In other words... drivers knew where they were, obey'ed the laws and revenue went down. How much more clear does the article have to be?

I have a problem myself when a municipality claims that Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) is "purely" for safety. The revenue generated almost has to be a factor.

What I find interesting is the reaction of people who jump on situations where a municipality decides to remove ATE and asserts that "See, it was only for revenue!"

OK, how did the revenue go down. Well drivers knew where they were, obey'ed the laws and revenue went down. I interpret that as increasing safety because driver's behavior had been modified.

But if you read the article from the channel 4 news link I posted the accident rate in areas without the speed cameras dropped 19% while the areas with speed cameras only dropped 13% during the same period. That means the non camera areas dropped by 50% more than the ones that had the speed cameras. How would you explain that based on your statement above.

So bottom line the counties own study found the cameras to be a failure as far as increased safety. Both accident rates and criminal activity in general in the Tucson area dropped during that period they followed but that was do to the passing of SB1070 and had little to do with traffic cameras.

Direct quote:
"With that in mind, the county began to explore whether or not the cameras have been effective and transportation officials found the answer is no.

While the crash rate for the entire Pima County road system declined by 19% since the start of the photo enforcement program, the three year crash rate for the eleven photo enforcement locations declined by only 13%."

http://www.kvoa.com/news/lights-out-for-pima-county-speed-en...

Note that the crash rate for the entire Pima County road system declined by 19% and the rate around the cameras declined by 13%. Note that we do not have data for the "non camera areas".

While we are dealing with some statistics here we are not dealing with a "study". We are not told the rate (berore or after) for the "non camera areas". In the entire system we have to be dealing with many different kinds of roads, including perhaps residential, two lane, multi-lane, congested, rural, etc. We do not know the reasons why certain areas were chosen for the cameras - making it hard to get an appropriate control group from the entire Pima County road system to make comparisons. We do not know what other "calming actions" may or may not have been taken in the "non camera areas".

Note that I was not commenting on the specifics of Pima County. I did react to the comment "drivers knew where they were, obey'ed the laws and revenue went down" because I believe that is exactly what happens when drivers modify their behavior around known camera locations (speed or red light). I believe that realizing there is a red light camera ahead does cause some drivers to be more cautious and get rear-ended by people who have not yet adapted to the red-light cameras being there. After a long enough time, most local drivers make adjustments.

This seems to be the thrust of
http://www.1041thetruth.com/news/Pima-County-shuts-down-phot...
which deals specifically with Pima County.

So let's continue this debate in a year or so, IF new statistics are published for the areas of the now removed cameras. Will the accident rates go up, down, or remain the same?

And if the beliefs & opinions of some members are correct then the accident rates will go up.

If not then others are correct in the assumption that they were installed to generate revenue and were removed when the profit margins decreased.

Traffic camera debates have become like discussing religion and politics. A whole lot of words, mixed feelings, hot opinions, and not much accomplished.