Accidents at red light camera intersections up 90 percent

[Brad Johnson]

Lubbock installed red light cameras at several intersections last year.  The number of accidents at hose intersections has increased from 42 to 80 (a 90.4% increase).  They are quick to point out that injuries are down.  I'm quick to think they just got lucky and that the laws of probability will catch up with them someday.

Brad

Accidents are up at red light camera intersections
ERIC FINLEY
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL


Rear end collisions at intersections with red light cameras in Lubbock nearly doubled since the cameras were installed, according to a report released today by the city.

Between July and September 2006, 42 rear end collisions occurred.

During that same period in 2007, 80 collisions occurred. The cameras were installed in July.

Injuries at those intersections, however, are down, which city officials say is due to the cameras.

The report is being reviewed by the Citizens Traffic Commission today.

[Paddy]

Well, I guess a rear end collision is better than getting T-Boned at 60mph by a red light runner.   

[Brad Johnson]

Well, I guess a rear end collision is better than getting T-Boned at 60mph by a red light runner.   

Higher rate of accident means higher probability of injury or death.  The laws of probability dictate it, they just got lucky this time around.  Plus, our rate of high-speed accidents contributed to redlight violations was relatively low to begin with.  One of our esteemed city leaders got a bug up his butt about it and glommed onto the pop thinking that redlight cameras will save the universe (not to mention providing a handy revenue stream for the city).

Brad

[Manedwolf]

Cops standing beside the road with a radar gun causes chain-reaction collisions, too, but they're not ending those, either.

[K Frame]

"Injuries at those intersections, however, are down, which city officials say is due to the cameras."

The chances of serious or fatal injuries are FAR greater in a T-bone accident than in a rear ender.

Virginia had similar findings when red light cameras were first installed.

HOWEVER, it will be very interesting to see what happens next year.

I'll bet serious money that the accident rate declines considerably from the sudden spike as people actually start to pay attention to what the hell they're doing.

I've seen some VERY scary *expletive deleted*it at intersections in DC metro.

About 5 years ago red light cameras went in at some of the worst intersections. The amount of scary *expletive deleted*it went down quite a bit.

Then, 2 years ago the cameras were shut down, and the amount of really scary *expletive deleted*it started going up again.

Accidents at Fairfax Circle apparently tripled in the months after the cameras were shut down, with many of them being a car trying to beat the light, and failing badly, clipping an oncoming car.

[Brad Johnson]

Another report, this one with a bit less "interpretation" and a little more actual data...

10/16/07
Rear End Collisions Increase at Red Light Camera Intersections

After three months with red light cameras, the City of Lubbock issued its first progress report Tuesday.

Lubbock accidents are down 5.5 percent overall, but accidents at photo enforced intersections increased dramatically. Crashes between July and September 2006 totaled 93. Between July and September of 2007, accidents were up to 140.

Crashes due to red light runners are down, from 22 to 21. However, rear end collisions over that same three month period nearly doubled, from 42 to 80. For critics of the red light cameras, rear end collisions were their number one concern.

As for citations, authorities say they have only managed to collect on sixty percent of all citations issued.

City officials say it is still too soon to decide whether the cameras are working.

[Jamisjockey]

Cops standing beside the road with a radar gun causes chain-reaction collisions, too, but they're not ending those, either.

Ah but a Cop standing there pulling people over is ticketing the DRIVER, not the VEHICLE. 
I'm not a red light runner, but if my VEHICLE is ever ticketed by a camera, I'm going to court.

[MechAg94]

In Texas, I don't think the red light camera violations are criminal.  It is a civil penalty.  They supposedly can ding your credit if you don't pay.  I have no idea if some recent court challenges amounted to anything.

[Paddy]

I think it's basically a money making machine.  The company that provides the cameras gets a cut of fines, the rest goes to the local gov.  It's like a partnership for profit thing.  It's the American way.

[MechAg94]

If the red light cameras were operated benevolently and only set to catch people running red lights most negligently, I would have fewer problems with them.  However, that is not the case historically.  I have heard that at least one city was caught manipulating the times on the lights to increase revenue.  I think that should be expected everywhere.  

I think there have also been studies that said if you just increase yellow light times or delay activation of the green light on the other lanes, you can decrease accidents the same amount.  

[MechAg94]

All of this may stop some casual idiots, but it will still not stop all red light runners.  Two examples:

  A guy I work with was T-boned several years ago at the intersection up the street from my plant.  The road he was turning left across was a 6 lane road.  Of the the oncoming lanes, the two vehicles on the inside and outside stopped.  The idiot in the middle lane didn't even slow down.  The light was long red by this time.  She was just in a hurry.  I take care at the intersection.  Luckily, she was delivering a part to a ship in Freeport and he got additional insurance money to help with his back surgery.  He is in pretty good shape now.

  Second, I almost T-boned a truck yesterday.  I was on a 4 lane road heading toward an intersection with a green light.  My light stayed green.  A guy in a big pickup who was waiting to turn left across my lane decided he didn't want to wait for the light and took a left in front of me forcing me to slam on the brakes.  That light I know is not a yield light, but a dedicated left turn when it comes around.  This idiot wasn't even in a hurry.  He leisurely moved through the intersection like there was no one else around.  In addition, he was already stopped at the red light when he went through.  He didn't just decide not to stop.  There were two other vehicles behind me in both lanes.  He had to have seen one of us.  He was an older guy and I think he was messed up or confused or something myself. 

[Tuco]

A couple of weeks ago, i was waiting to make a right hand turn onto a 55 mph (70 mph actual) two lane road.  I made a false start, stopped when I saw the additional vehicles, and was rear ended by a young woman at about 5 mph.
When traffic cleared, we entered the roadway, drove 1/4 mile to a church parking lot to survey the damage.  There was none on my truck. Her Honda had a nice scar and broken headlight.  I have no way of knowing if her damage was preexisting.
I let her know that I had no reason to take this any further, I was fine, and had no damage.  She agreed and drove on. 

I forgot all about it until now.

I suspect those the kind of accidents that are upping the count in Lubbock. 
 
If so,  there may be no correlation between actual accidents and the cameras.

Also, are the injuries down as a function of overall accidents, or are overall injuries down at the intersections?   

[Waitone]

Charlotte and Greensboro NC both have been through red light camera.  Results are the same in that accidents jump.  Greensboro got caught juicing the intersection by shortening the yellow light cycle which tended to increase the number of violations.  IIRC there was some court action and the city took the cameras down.

Charlotte turned the cameras into a profit center.  First came red light cameras.  Fines became administrative ordeals not legal issues.  Seems you have no right to trial or face your accuser.  You are simply given a bill for a fine along with a picture.  Pay the fine and all is well.  Don't pay the fine and the city says nasty things about you to the credit rating bureaus and that is all.  They don't even both informing your insurance company of a no-no. 

If red light cameras did a little good, speed cameras (the next step) will do a lot of good.  Sure enough the same company pimping red light cameras pushed speed cameras.  Same drill only the cameras were mobile.  Problem they ran into is this little thingy called "equal protection" under the law.  One day a speeding ticket is a nasty comment on your credit report.  Same road, same time on another day you get to talk to Mr. Judge. 

Nip it in the bud now because the cameras rapidly become a revenue source for the city.

[Desertdog]

If so,  there may be no correlation between actual accidents and the cameras.

The drivers try harder to stop on the yellow to prevent a traffic ticket from the light.  My daughter was rear ended at a standard light and the dumb as# said "why the hell did you stop, you could have made it"
My idea is that if they want to stop accidents instead of income, change the timing on the light.  Make the yellow longer, and make a delay on the red to green after green to red of maybe 1 second, or more depending on the intersection.

[K Frame]

Retiming the lights work great, until people get used to the new timing, and then the problem is as bad as it was before, if not worse.

Major intersection near my office, people coming off the I-66 interstate go through to one of the main feeder roads or make a left onto a different feeder road.

VDOT has altered the timing a number of times in an effort to cut down on the rather incredible number of people who jump that light.

Today I counted SEVENTEEN cars that plowed through the intersection after their light had turned yellow, then red, then the oncoming lanes got the GREEN light. And we're not talking a quick yellow-red-green cycle, here.

Imagine how much money the state could make with a red light camera right there. Even if 10 cars a light cycle is the average during the rush hours (it also happens during non rush hour) the state could probably drop taxes.

Oddly enough, that's apparently one of the safest intersections in Northern Virginia, for whatever reason, and no red light cameras are planned for it.

So, I guess the cameras are not always just about making money.


But, as I always say, there's an easy way to keep from being part of the revenue stream... Don't try to cruise through the light.

[K Frame]

" Seems you have no right to trial or face your accuser."

As I understand it, several courts have held that photographic evidence of the intersection violation is more than sufficiently meets the standard of 'facing your accuser.'

[mtnbkr]

Tamara had a problem with red light cameras recently:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/06/red-light-camera-fiasco.html

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2007/06/behold-power-of-intarw3bz.html

Chris

[MechAg94]

Retiming the lights work great, until people get used to the new timing, and then the problem is as bad as it was before, if not worse.

Major intersection near my office, people coming off the I-66 interstate go through to one of the main feeder roads or make a left onto a different feeder road.

VDOT has altered the timing a number of times in an effort to cut down on the rather incredible number of people who jump that light.

Today I counted SEVENTEEN cars that plowed through the intersection after their light had turned yellow, then red, then the oncoming lanes got the GREEN light. And we're not talking a quick yellow-red-green cycle, here.

Imagine how much money the state could make with a red light camera right there. Even if 10 cars a light cycle is the average during the rush hours (it also happens during non rush hour) the state could probably drop taxes.

Oddly enough, that's apparently one of the safest intersections in Northern Virginia, for whatever reason, and no red light cameras are planned for it.

So, I guess the cameras are not always just about making money.


But, as I always say, there's an easy way to keep from being part of the revenue stream... Don't try to cruise through the light.

So what you are saying is that re-timing the lights on that intersection made it safer without red light cameras and despite people still pushing the limits on the yellow. 

My general rule is I don't like it when cities mix a safety issue with revenue generation.  I seriously doubt cities will maintain focus on the safety part once they get used to the revenue part.  Speeding tickets are the same thing to me.  Are police ticketing people in the most dangerous areas where wrecks occur or are they ticketing people at the places where it is easier to catch them?  Are they changing their standard of who gets a ticket to make their non-quota every month?

[K Frame]

I wonder what kind of hell she's had to go through getting the county clerk to get the records straight...

[K Frame]

"So what you are saying is that re-timing the lights on that intersection made it safer without red light cameras and despite people still pushing the limits on the yellow."

No, that's NOT what I said. You jumped to that conclusion.

That particular intersection, for whatever reason, has apparently always been a very low accident intersection despite the high level of traffic on it, while Fairfax Circle, less than a mile away, has always been one of the most dangerous in the area.

[MechAg94]

So you are saying it had a lower accident rate before the lights were messed with? 

[Desertdog]

Today I counted SEVENTEEN cars that plowed through the intersection after their light had turned yellow, then red, then the oncoming lanes got the GREEN light. And we're not talking a quick yellow-red-green cycle, here.

Is there a delay after the light turns red before the cross street light turns green?

To me that is the way to make the intersection safe from accidents, unless they actually run the red light.

[K Frame]

So you are saying it had a lower accident rate before the lights were messed with? 

Yes, but running the lights has been a problem at that intersection since I first moved to the area in 1993.

The lights were adjusted in an effort to give drives more warning about the impending change to red.

The net effect is that even MORE people ran through the yellow light because it was lengthened.

In an effect to counter that, the lag time between the red and oncoming green was lengthened.

People responded by realizing that they could safely run the RED light before cross traffic got the green.

This morning 6 or so of the 17 cars that plowed through the intersection did so AFTER the light changed to red. People hitting that intersection at rush hour know exactly how long they have to get through the intersection so they continue to push it.


Given that behavior, it would seem logical that state and local authorities would be absolutely salivating to put up lights at that intersection, yet no lights are planned there.

That fact alone puts the lie to the claim that all red light cameras are simply about revenue generation.

[K Frame]

"To me that is the way to make the intersection safe from accidents, unless they actually run the red light."

See the message below this one.

[BrokenPaw]

That particular intersection, for whatever reason, has apparently always been a very low accident intersection despite the high level of traffic on it, while Fairfax Circle, less than a mile away, has always been one of the most dangerous in the area.

In all fairness, Mike, the reason Fairfax Circle is such a dangerous intersection may have something to do with the fact that it's also probably one of the most convoluted and ill-conceived intersections in the known universe.

Traffic circles operate on the premise that everyone incoming can just join the flow around the circle, and then exit at the right point once they get around to it.  All of that is sort of rendered pointless by the fact that there's a major divided highway punching right through the center of the circle.

And photographic evidence of my car going through an intersection is not proof that I was driving it.  And unless I, as a software engineer, have the right to inspect the source code of the camera, how can it be proven that the picture was taken at the right time and not as the result of a software error?  And if the photo shows my car in the intersection and the red light in the same frame, can it be proven that the photo is not a fabrication?

If I ever got a ticket from a red-light camera, I would go out and take a pic of my car in an intersection with a green light, then GIMP it to show the light as yellow, then red, then blue, then pink, then clone my car out of the frame, then GIMP another car into the frame, and ask the state to identify which of the photos are legit and which are not.  And if they cannot, then they cannot use their photo as evidence.

The judge that sits on the Traffic Court bench in Prince William county figured out that cam-tickets are unenforceable; back when the cameras were operational, if you showed up for court with such a ticket in hand, before she started in on the docket, she announced to the courtroom, "Everyone with a red-light-camera ticket, stand up.  Dismissed.  You may all go."

-BP