Red light cameras - a deadly scam

[Brad Johnson]

I did some digging for another forum I like to visit. The info I found is so good I thought it needed sharing. The thread was about red light cameras. From what I found, they are not only ineffective, they are flat out deadly. The studies also confirmed something I've thought for years - that simply lengthening the yellow interval will curb accidents cause by people either jamming on their brakes in a panic stop or doing the "Yellow Light Stomp" to get through before the light changes. Combining a lengthened yellow with an overlapping Red/Red interval reduces traffic light accidents by a staggering amount - far more than the stupid red light cameras. And it's basically free because the guy who programs the lights is probably already on the city staff and drawing a paycheck anyway.


"Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents"
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/dc.html

"A Long-term Study of Red Light Cameras and Accidents"
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/australia.html

The Virginia Study conclusively proving that increasing yellow light intervals decreases red light violations by NINETY FOUR PERCENT!!!
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/vastudy.html

The Zimmerman Study (Texas A&M University)
http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies/effectofyellowintervaltiming.html

An editorial on red light cameras by the Conservative Monitor.
http://www.conservativemonitor.com/news/2001019.shtml

A small article on TechDirt referencing a Texas Transportation Dept study conclusing proving the efficacy of lengthened yellow intervals.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050309/0956224_F.shtml

An article in the Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351581/posts

Another article highligthing the alarming trend of municipalities shortening intervals to intentionally generate more ticket revenue. (in PDF format)
http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/pdf/2005/11/12/press_release_9349.pdf#search='yellow%20light%20safety%20study'

And finally...

Two very telling excerpts from the NHTSA Red Light Camera Guidance Report.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distraction/Topics013020635.htm

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Research studies have determined that inadequate signal timing ... tends to increase red light running by motorists at signalized intersections."

"The likelyhood of a motorist running a red light increases as the yellow interval is shortened." (emphasis added - Brad)

In short, red light cameras are a revenue-generating scam of Orwellian proportions used under the guise of "safety". They exist only to make money, as there are far cheaper and more effective ways to reduce accidents at problem intersections.

On a personal note - I think any municipality cought shortening their yellow intervals should have every member of their city council, along with their traffic management engineer, brought up on attempted murder charges. They are playing russian roulette with peoples' lives in a scumbag attempt to get a few extra bucks in the coffers.

Brad

[Art Eatman]

I read about the increase in whiplash neck injuries, some time back.

If anybody thinks that's the sort of thing that would affect the conscience of an elected official that's seen the $$$ numbers in increased income from traffic fines, though, think again.  Nor will it stop the lobbying by the manufacturers looking to increase their sales.

Art

[Waitone]

Has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue generation.  Charlotte is a case in point.  Excuse was safety.  Now to make safety cheap and easy the city through its contractor will simply send you a photo of someone in your car running the red light.  No court.  No lawyer.  No points.  Just a simple fine of $50.  Can't challenge the fine.  Don't pay the fine and the city will say nasty things about you to credit reporting agencies.  That's all.  Now to add to the asininity, net proceeds of the scam goes to city education (Do it for the chilren).  So here we have a program if taken to its logical conclusions encourages law abiding citizens to break the law for the chilren.  What a crock!  Bottom line, the program is called scameras for a reason.

[K Frame]

I've addressed this issue a number of times before on other forums.

I'm all for red light cameras.

Who gives a *expletive deleted*it if they're about revenue generation?

Here's your choice, Joe Citizen...

I can raise your tax rate 3% next year to generate revenue for a variety of projects.

Or, I can keep your tax rate the same and make that revenue by penalizing selfish selfabsorbed aholes who think that their time is so much more precious than mine that they're willing to put your life at risk by blasting through a red light.

Personally I know which one I'm in favor of. If the Ftard in the car next to me wants to clip through a red light, fine, let him. I'd gladly thank him for adding to the Fairfax County revenue stream. If he causes an accdent due to his selfishness? I'd also be in favor of a minimum $5,000 fine. Accident with injuries? Minimum $10,000.

One little thought about accident types, too.

Rear end accidents are RARELY as serious as T-bone accidents.

In 1993 I walked away from a rear end accident in which I was hit from behind by a car doing between 40 and 50 MPH.

I had a vicious bruise across my chest from the seat belt, my head bent the head rest posts, and one of the bolts holding my seat to the car was sheared off. The next 4 days were a living hell, but I got some cool drugs out of the whole deal, plus a decent insurance settlement.

A few years before that a former coworker was hit broadside by a car doing an estimated 25-30 MPH. He now has an artificial left hip and IIRC an artificial left knee, and will never be pain free again.


Finally, I also cry foul on some of those "statistics" that are shown in the linked reports. There's little, if any, causal data to definitively show that red light cameras are, in fact, the actual cause of what is claimed. We had a similar discussion about that kind of statistical reporting in the recent thread on motorcycle helmets.

[mfree]

there is some good to the cameras... there's an intersection just outside the armory, actually it's a series of intersections. In order for the DOT to get them to "work right", even before the cameras the turning light timing was short. All the time semi trucks would trundle up the offramp and blow the light in front of the people wanting to turn left and get onto I-40 westbound, and because of the short light sometimes they'd actually make us all sit through another full cycle.

Well, now the trucks seem to be aware of the cameras they've installed and they aren't blasting through that intersection on a yellow so fast you'd think they'll tip anymore

Those cameras are probably going to be one more antagonist against the truck stops on that stretch of road... truck stops aren't a bad thing per se, but these have likely been operating since the 50's and the city has grown up around them, and the roads aren't engineered for any level of truck traffic, you've got jams galore, trucks pulling into these stops and leaving 20' of their trailer sitting out in traffic, trucks crossing into oncoming lanes to make turns and entrances, etc. I hate to see any lasting business close, but I think these stops are going to close eventually, especially when there are 2-3 "megastops" down on the next frickin' exit.

So yeah, one area where cameras are benefitting.

[Brad Johnson]

Who gives a *expletive deleted*it if they're about revenue generation?

Many municipalities SHORTEN then yellow intervals in order to increase the number of hits on the cameras (it's fact - just do a quick internet search for a shocking number of verified cases). This shortened interval, used specifically as a revenue generation tool, causes accidents. Accidents cause injuries and deaths.

so... The question now becomes "How many tickets do you have to issue to equal the value of a human life?".

Personally, that's not an equation I want to try and solve.

The data is overwhelming. Red light cameras, even used for revenue generation without someone monkeying with the intervals, cause more harm than good. Trying to justify their existence for any reason is equivalent to argueing that two plus two equals twelve. If you need revenue, there are ways to do it without playing russion roulette with peoples' lives.



mfree,

The cameras are only a band-aid. By your own admission, here's the problem...

even before the cameras the turning light timing was short.

The city could have easily corrected the situation you described by simply lengthened the yellow intervals, giving the trucks ample time to safely traverse the intersections. Instead, they chose to keep the short yellow intervals and install a device to generate revenue from an inherently dangerous situation that they INTENTIONALLY ignored. That's not the cameras being a good thing, that's a city playing with your well being in order to raise a little revenue. Surely you see something inherently wrong with that.

Brad

[Art Eatman]

What happens insofar as the increase in whiplash injuries is that people see the orange light, remember the camera and are unsure about the legality of crossing during the orange:  Whammo!  Lock up the brakes!

Drunks and 'professionanl speeders" are gonna keep doing their thing, cameras or no cameras.  It's just like crooks and gun control laws.  The problem here is additive to the existing traffic tolls...

Art

[Guest]

I am opposed to almost all traffic "safety" policing. It is damn near all revenue generation. And revenue generation should not be the focus of law enforcement. It is an extremely corrupting influence on Gov.
 As a matter of principle, I am opposed to ANY more money from ANY source going to government. Like P J O'Rourke said most effectively, "giving money to the Gov. is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys."
 They have enough., the only way to control them is limiit the funding.
 They have sent forth an army of officers to harrass us and eat out our substance.......

[mfree]

Brad Johnson,

Don't yank a phrase out of a clause. The lights are short because if they were any longer that intersection would stack up through the previous one or TWO lighted intersections. It's a very close-coupled high traffic road that can't be widened any more than it already has.