Quote:

If the incident made you more attentive as a driver, then the camera/ticket has done its job for public safety.

Quote:

And ianmac47, since when are collecting revenue and heightening public safety mutually exclusive? I disagree with lengthening the duration of the yellow light. It just encourages more people to hit the accelerator to try and beat the light (or speed up from further away). People forget the whole point of the yellow light is that it's a signal to slow down and be prepared to stop, not hit the gas and blow through an intersection, possibly broadsiding another car. I spent a summer internship riding along with cops. I saw a lot of dead bodies that summer, and the worst were not from murders, but from broadsides at intersections when someone ran a red light. In one case, a mother and daughter were killed. The force of the impact actually was strong enough to eject the mother, who was driving, through the passenger-side window. And the driver of the pickup who ran the red light? He walked away from the accident.

Quote:

The goal is to keep people from running red lights and I think it would be quite effective. Increasing the duration of the yellow would do nothing. Having the alternate light turn to green after a delay would allow the red-light runners to go through more safely, but I would rather just have them stop running the red light.

If its truly a safety issue, then the correct response is lengthening the duration of the amber light, not installing traffic cameras. If the goal is generating revenue, then at least they should call a spade, a spade.

I got a ticket about two years ago as a result of one of these red light cameras mounted on 56th st and 11 ave in Manhattan.

Its was really embarassing especially since my sister opened the envelope thinking that it was some important time sensitive, car registration related item. The ticket had three images, one of me right before ithe intersection with the light red, me a fraction of a second later in the middle of intersection with the light red, and a third one of my license plates magnfied. The worst part about, is I didn't remember ever running that light, and I would never intentionally attempt to run any red lights.

If more people are being rear-ended because drivers are actually stopping at red lights, that just tells me too many people are tailgating and/or not paying attention because they're, in all likelihood, gabbing on their cell phones. Am I the only one who remembers and observes the 3-second rule from driver's ed? I really think driver's should be retested every so often when they renew their licenses - not just the written test, but behind the wheel, too.

Quote:

I'll play devil's advocate...

From the WaPo article you quoted, there's this bit:
"Advocates for the cameras point to research such as a recent national study by the Federal Highway Administration that showed the number of broadside crashes dipped 25 percent at sites with cameras. The study found that rear-end crashes rose 15 percent at camera locations. But because broadside crashes are more dangerous and cause greater damage, the study concluded that the cameras can help reduce the costs of traffic accidents."

Intuitively to me, it doesn't make sense why the traffic cameras would contribute to higher traffic accidents, however I would be willing to bet there are a number of confounding variables that would make the analysis far from conclusive:

--Are there more cars on the road in 2005 vs. 1998?
--Cellphones are more prevalent in 2005 than 1998, Which are a contributor to traffic accidents (the study found that all traffic accidents went up over the period studied)
--Traffic cameras were only installed at the busiest intersections which are more accident prone than other less-busy intersections (so you'd expect more accidents there, no?)
--The sample size of these studies seems pretty small
--Are there other factors at play (different traffic patterns, construction, etc) that could have an effect on drivers at these particular traffic lights?

Bottom line though, it's a much more efficient way to collect fines. If they want to make some more money I could think of quite a few places they could post cameras for not coming to a complete stop - that'd be a goddamn gravy train!

I see the point you all are making. I've also read that side collisions from running reds are far more damaging than rear end collisions. I'm also wondering why all the folks are running into the guy who stopped. If they're behind someone who should be stopping, why aren't they stopping too? Maybe there's a learning curve -- or maybe they need to stop speeding as well. It seems that a lot of the rear end accidents can be averted by lengthening the timer on the yellow light.

From what I hear, red light cameras decrease the number of people running red lights..which would result in lower revenues and lower instances of someone running a light and being hit by someone who had the green...but increase accidents that occur AT the light because drivers will slam brakes to avoid running the light and getting a ticket and motorists behind them will rear-end them because they had little notice.

In general, red light cameras just make motorists act in a way that is not natural to them..i.e. if I am inclined to speed up to catch a yellow, I will still speed up and make a last minute decision to stop when I get closer and realize that I will SURELY get a ticket if I run the light. Such actions increase the likelihood of being rear-ended, while decreasing the likelihood I will run a red light.

It's in the article I posted.

Quote:

"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."

Washington Post


"Camera proponents often argue that the devices create a "halo effect" that spreads improved driving habits throughout the city, including intersections where red light cameras are not installed. In the District, accidents increased citywide by 61 percent. Camera-free intersections experienced an additional 64 percent in accidents overall, a 54 percent increase in fatal and serious injury accidents and a 17 percent rise in t-bone collisions"

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/687.asp

"The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."


Virginia DOT Summary


"City officials touted red-light cameras as a way to enforce safety, but they could be contributing to more collisions at surveyed intersections.

According to city statistics, red-light collisions, where someone runs the light and causes a crash, have been reduced and are expected to remain down. Rear-end collisions are estimated to increase 63 percent."

Amarillo.com



So do tell, what's the other side of this story?

The right on red thing is what gets pedestrians. Lots of drivers don't bother to stop before turning right where there's no oncoming traffic from the left - totally ignoring people standing on the right corner waiting to cross. I've seen some hair raising things at the corner of Montgomery and Jersey involving mothers with children on the way to school.

safety or revenue, whatever the motive, i don't care. i just hope the idiots who have almost killed me at the congress and patterson plank light get theirs.

As in so many areas, you can find studies and anecdotal evidence to support both sides. Dallas is having second thoughts on continuing its red light surveillance because its working too well.



Dallas' red light cameras may face changes as revenue estimate drops

Dallas' system works too well, eating into revenues, fueling possible changes


12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, March 15, 2008
By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
dlevinthal@dallasnews.com

Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

Initial gross revenue estimates for the red light camera system during Dallas' 2007-08 fiscal year were $14.8 million, according to city records. The latest estimate? About $6.2 million. City Manager Mary Suhm on Friday estimated net revenue will fall $4.1 million under initial estimates.

That leaves Dallas government with a conundrum. Its red-light camera system has been an effective deterrent to motorists running red lights ? some monitored intersections have experienced a more than 50 percent reduction. But decreased revenue from red light-running violations means significantly less revenue to maintain the camera program and otherwise fuel the city's general fund.

Exacerbating the drain is a new state law requiring that municipalities send half of their net red-light-running camera revenue to Austin and post signs alerting drivers of upcoming camera installations. Also, city records indicate Dallas has lengthened yellow-light intervals on 12 of its 62 monitored traffic signals, giving motorists more time to beat a red light.

City transportation officials say they're brainstorming potential changes to the red-light camera program, which is financed by the general fund, before a planned update to the City Council next month on the program's status.

"We did not anticipate having such success so early with the number of people not running red lights," said Zaida Basora, Dallas' assistant director of public works and transportation. "If you have success in safety, you don't have a lot of success in revenue. The other side is the people will go back to what they were doing before without the cameras."

ianmac,

so right on that one.

Great idea indeed, since traffic accidents increase when red light cameras are installed. Cameras are not a safety issue, they are a revenue generation machine.

Great idea, hopefully this will stop some of the insane driving in JC. The other day I actually saw a car at a red light go into the left lane (as if when the light turned green he was going to go left), then proceed to move over to the right lane to get into the front of the line, and then make a right turn on red at a light where it is not allowed. He almost hit a man with two small children and a crossing guard. Never seen that one before.

Think again before running that red light

Monday, February 02, 2009
By CHARLES HACK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITERS

RON ZEITLINGER

Just because you don't see a cop around when you run that red light doesn't mean you won't be ticketed, Jersey City residents may soon learn the hard way.

The city has been approved by the state Department of Transportation to participate in the Red Light Running Automated Enforcement pilot program and will install a camera at a busy intersection to catch drivers who ignore red signals.

Jersey City is one of 12 municipalities across the state that have been approved for the program. The others are Newark, Lawrence, Linden, New Brunswick, Wayne, Brick Township, North Brunswick, Piscataway, Roselle Park and Stafford.

"The Red Light Running camera program can help communities supplement their traditional law enforcement resources," DOT Commissioner Stephen Dilts said in a statement.

Jersey City officials said Friday that the camera will be supplied by the DOT and will be mounted above the Tonnelle Avenue traffic circle south of Manhattan Avenue.

Last year Hoboken approved a plan to install cameras at some intersections with stop signs, but cameras were never installed.

The state pilot program is designed to determine whether a traffic control signal monitoring system increases safety at these locations.

The five-year pilot program was signed into law last January and calls for signs to be posted where the traffic signal is being monitored by a camera. Similar programs have been implemented in 24 other states, the DOT said.

Yesterday, opinions were mixed as to how much a camera would keep drivers in line.

"It's a good idea," said 43-year-old Secaucus resident Eddie Bermudez, a server at the Hyatt Regency Jersey City on the Hudson. "There are a lot of drivers who beat the red light there."

Juan Santos, 25, a technician at the Jersey City Medical Center, said he takes Kennedy Boulevard when commuting from his home in Clifton because of predictable traffic backups at the Tonnelle Circle.

"They should change the lighting system," Santos said, arguing drivers can get stuck in the circle between red lights. "I don't think it's fair."