More damning evidence on a subject on which there’s been plenty already (Sept. 6, 2001, Sept. 24, 2006, etc.; Oct. 31, 2006): “a study by the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department documented a 12 percent increase in rear-enders at Northern Virginia intersections where cameras enforced red-light violations. Although proponents of cameras contend the number of such accidents decreases as motorists become used to this new enforcement technology, the study says that isn’t so. Meanwhile, simply extending the time that the traffic light stays yellow helps reduce violations and accidents. However, that solution isn’t necessarily popular with towns that see red-light tickets as a revenue source, the [Miami] Herald says.” (Martha Neil, “Traffic Cameras Mean More Rear-Enders”, ABA Journal, Oct. 31; Larry Lebowitz, “Red-light cameras a signal for war”, Miami Herald, Oct. 29).
12 Comments
Since when has it ever been about safety? Law enforcement is more geared towards generating revenue than enforcing the law.
Jim, I learned that at a young age from watching a profoundly insightful TV program: “The Dukes of Hazzard.”
So, rear-end collisions rose. Did other kinds of accidents fall? Rise? Stay the same?
Duh.
When police chiefs make public statements that police officers should give “professional courtesy” (that is, excuse them for speeding, etc) to police officers AND THEIR FAMILIES, there is absolutely nothing left to believe but that enforcement of such laws is indeed all about revenue, not public safety.
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
What is missing in this is did side collisions go down when the cameras were installed? These types of wrecks tend to be more common at red lights and more deadly as the offender is traveling at a higher rate of speed and there is less car (door panel vs. trunk) to separate the victim from the oncoming mayhem. Let’s talk degree of physical injury in the unfortunate meeting of two vehicles going in the same direction at the same time versus two perpendicular at the moment of impact.
As a matter of principle I was vehemently opposed to red light cameras. Until they installed one at the intersection which serves as an entrance to our subdivision. An intersection which previously was so dangerous because of people running the red light it required, as suggested of our late, great Sheriff Harry Lee, holding off through two Hail Marys and one Our Father before venturing out into same said intersection. Things have calmed down considerably since they installed the cameras. It is an awesome display of flash power when a car blows through. They know they’ve been pwned.
I still disagree with the revenue sharing contracts, but that could be solved with one law in the state legislature. Anyone who feigns surprise at the revenue enhancing effect of traffic tickets for local communities must have been asleep for the past 30 years while state after state has had to enact laws to curb small town speed traps.
Until I hear the other side of the story I just don’t think it is necessary to throw out the baby with the bath water.
This shows that the cameras are increasing red-light compliance, which is a good thing. I can’t feel sorry for either the drivers who are content to run a red light and then have to slam to a stop when they see the camera, or the drivers who are following at such an unsafely close distance that they can’t stop in time. There’s no unfair surprise here. The red light is plainly apparent, and the only problem is that these drivers were happy to blow through it but for the sudden realization that they were likely to be caught. This is an issue of personal responsibility, and I’m surprised to see Walter straining to find a way to blame the Government for their bad conduct.
Jeff, I watched it too. Thought it was fiction untill I grew up.
Bumper, while I agree with you in principal and am glad that the cameras are making that intersection safer, you need to look at the big picture. What happens when the cameras at your intersection stop generating revenue? You have already said that you have noticed that the number of people running the light has been reduced. What happens when the number of citations issued at that intersection falls below that which is needed for the company operating the cameras to make a profit? Then it comes down to three options. One, do nothing, two, remove the camera from the intersection or three, do something to increase the number of citations. Out of the three, option one is the best where you are concerned, but the worst for the company operating the cameras.
I’m not against the cameras themselves, rather I’m against the commercial aspect of their use. Companies have to show either growth or a profit or their soon out of business. I think that cameras such as these need to be operated by the municipalities themselves. Maybe the NHTSA can divert some of the millions of dollars it gives MADD to grants to help pay for these systems.
There is more information about this on the National Motorists Association website. http://www.motorists.org/
If you think the Trial lawyers are out of control, wait untill you read some of the articles on this site.
Typically the “fine” is minimal, cost of court is where the action is. Also lawyer fees if you decide to hire one.
We had a new highway patrolman here that issued over 150 following to close tickets a week for the first three weeks of his being stationed here. He managed this miracle by parking half on/half off highway 70 during rush hour. Since cars already squeezed in the area had to drop from two lanes down to one to go around him they would bunch on each light cycle. He had a field day. My wife won her a ticket part of which clearly indicated that she was traveling more than 15 mph under the posted limit (we’re small enough here that even during rush hour doing the posted limit is still usual). The attourney we consulted indicated that we should challenge this at the end of the day since judges know that if they find someone “not guilty” early in the day most of those who would plead guilty will be encourage to attempt to defend themselves….. Unfortunately for her she had hurt her back and was unwilling to sit in court all day and wait… So now the system wins, the insurance company wins and another cynic feels reaffirmed 😉
Tom T., you are not considering the people who have no desire to blow through red lights, but who, like all of us, must sometimes make a snap judgment call about whether to go through a yellow light. The presence of cameras makes this a potentially expensive judgment call, one that must be made in a split second and one that may promote unsafe stopping.
There are also reports of cities shortening yellow light times for the purpose of increasing the number of tickets. Even if you eliminate this sort of behavior (somehow), you still have the problem of creating an incentive to stop suddenly as soon as the light turns yellow. This is not always the safest option.
Maybe on the whole, the cameras do reduce accidents, but the answer isn’t obvious, so the research is worth doing. And of course, the governments’ insatiable desire for revenue means we need some way to catch cheating, such as shortening the yellow light times.
I remember the first time I saw a red-light cam. I stopped so hard I nearly caused a rear-ender. The woman behind me was livid – that, or maybe her horn just got stuck.
“There are also reports of cities shortening yellow light times for the purpose of increasing the number of tickets.”
This gets to the meat of the problem… what INCENTIVES does such a system set up?
The incentive for those running the cameras is to “catch” as many people as possible.
The incentives for the people driving are to not get caught AND to not have to deal with the paperwork if they get incorrectly caught.
The incentives need to encourage the safest driving, and “getting the most money” is not compatible with that.
The cameras are designed to raise revenue. Period.
Obviously, people should not run lights (and REALLY shouldn’t enter the intersection after the light is red) but most red light running is the result of drivers frustrated with the piss-poor programming of signals by city street departments.
We can all think of routes cursed with serial red lights.
An intersection near my office has a green light time of eight seconds regardless of the number of cars waiting. Three or four drivers routinely run the light out of frustration. I cut through a residential area to avoid it. Several calls to the city have had no results.
No camera system should be installed until a COMPETENT study is made to verify that the problem isn’t poor light timing, visibility problems, and so on.
No city or state government will be able to resist the urge to worsen already bad light programming when the result is more money (all the while badgering us about ozone alerts and “climate change”).
There is a real need for effective traffic enforcement but that’s not the point.
How many times do you see a cop shooting radar on a highway in the middle of nowhere yet never, ever see a cop catching the 80 MPH maniac weaving through rush hour traffic or the slow-poke in the left-lane causing traffic to jam up?