"It's rare for a state agency that is supposed to improve public safety to suggest that cities running red-light cameras may make the problem worse. But it just happened in Florida.
The Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles issued its 'Red Light Camera Summary Report for 2014-2015' in response to numerous controversies and complaints about towns like Brooksville, FL that gathered thousands in ticket revenue from highly suspect red-light camera ticketing operations.
The report found that intersection crashes in communities with red light camera programs have increased by an average of 14 percent since the cameras were first installed."
When did these geniuses think of this?
how often does this happen, at an intersection with a rlc
The premise is that Broad has rlcs, not at Dickinson. Video, in itself, often does not appear to be a deterrent.
They got 38 cents off a gallon when they thought of it.
What we don't know from this, is whether the types of accidents that increased are rear-end, front to side or pedestrian types of accidents. While more drivers might pull up short on a yellow light and being involved in a rear-end collision, it s far more deadly to be hit in the intersection at speed by someone running the light. Anyone know?
There are charts in the document that list the type of accident. The number of rear-end accidents went up a lot in Orlando.
Why would they be trusted in creation of charts?
At what point would common sense take over?
Since we've added traffic signals, accidents have increased.
In order to lower accidents, we must remove traffic signals.
First of all, non sequitur.
Secondly, anybody who cannot respond to a traffic signal, revoke their license. Having the ability to react to a traffic signal is not optional. Maybe they could when they were 16 y.o., but no longer have the ability.
Reacting to the signal is not the problem. A lot of the problem is over-reacting to the signal. If they know there is a RLC at a light they slam on the breaks as soon as the light turns yellow. This is what is causing an increase in the rear-end accidents.
When ABS became widespread? Like Trump, I haven't got time to be 100% politically correct--old people could not relate to mashing their foot through the floor in a panic situation, and continued to pump the brakes on cars with ABS, resulting in longer stopping distances.
This is not the fault of the technology, it's the fault of old people refusing to accept that the technology simply works.
And I don't like Trump. Just that he has a point in we don't get anywhere just dancing and dancing around a topic incessantly.
So with this pretzel logic, cars should never have had ABS and stability control, nor 3 point seat belts or air bags. They all increase accidents.
Pretty much everyone knows how red lights work and how other drivers operate. It doesn’t mean people strictly follow the rules; just that people know what to expect.
Now add an occasional RLC. Those in the know recognize there are financial consequences if they violate the rules. Therefore they act in a different way at those lights in order to prevent the associated consequences. Those not aware of the RLC act the same as they do at other lights. This results in two different sets of behavior. Common sense says when there is a divergence of actions and expectations there will be an increase in accidents. Why would anyone expect otherwise?
Those who cannot behave according to mores are usually segregated. In this case, the first step would be to hold the nervous nellies accountable, second step would be to remove their driving privileges. This is my last dance as Donna Summer said on this thread.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2020