re: Red light cameras

Numbnut?...now An idiot?....I crossed under a yellow light and got a ticket from the camera.... I didn't slam on the brakes because someone was behind me....

quote:

---

People die from idiots blowing the lights.....its not a simple issue.

---

But it is simple.


If someone blows through a solid red that has been red for a while and plows into cross traffic, that's one thing. But we all know the majority of the red light cam tickets are ticky-tack split second ones. The research is mixed, but it seems in most locations the red light cameras actually INCREASE accidents and injuries.

If the goal is really to improve public safety and reduce accidents and injuries, there are better ways to utilize technology to accomplish this. You can put up cameras and radar, but instead of watching these dangerous situations play out and mailing out citations after the fact, how about if a camera/radar sees someone approaching too quickly, DON'T TURN THE CROSS TRAFFIC LIGHT GREEN. Instead, flash the red at the idiot approaching too quickly. Make it brighter. Blare a fricking train horn. Get his attention and make him stop before allowing people to drive in front of him. And then if he still drives through, mail him a citation for $10k, I don't care.

Just don't try to pass off these obvious revenue generation schemes as public safety programs, especially when a lot of the research shows that they actually make intersections less safe as people slam their brakes to avoid a fine.

quote:

---

People die from idiots blowing the lights.....its not a simple issue.

---

Red light cameras cause more accidents from people trying to slam on brakes to avoid a ticket

quote:

---

Accident increases are because of rear-end collisions which stem from people not approaching an intersection correctly and someone flowing too closely (tailgating).

---

Yeah.

quote:

---

However, I have seen no data detailing an increase in injuries. Can you share that? T-bone collisions are obviously more deadly, and those are assuredly decreased at red-light camera intersections.

---

Here is a study by DOT with injury figures and damage cost estimates. Whether total injuries are increased or decreased depends on the intersection, but in almost all cases the right-angle collision injuries saved are mostly made up for by rear-end collision injuries. At the very least, it is not a clear cut conclusion that a red light cam at a particular intersection will reduce injuries, and more study is required.

quote:

---

I also dispute your assertion that the private companies get a cut of the revenue (I.e., more infractions, more revenue). I believe it is a flat fee per intersection

---

It depends on local/state laws and such, but a simple google search will show you that revenue sharing from red light cams is definitely a thing. A couple links to get you started:

LINK

quote:

---

American Traffic Solutions, Inc. This Arizona-based company bills itself as "a leading provider of technology enabled business and service solutions for Road Safety Camera operations." What they don't tell the public is that one-third of the company is owned by Goldman Sachs, or that they keep up to 86 percent of the profit on their red light cams. Critics say ATS, Inc. is getting rich while the municipalities they supply are barely breaking even after expenses.

---

quote:

---

2. Redflex Traffic Systems Phoenix, Arizona-based Redflex is second after ATS, Inc. as a provider of red light cameras, with more than 2,000 of the devices placed in cities across the United States and Canada. Their revenues totalled more than $92 million in 2011. The company keeps up to 88 percent of the proceeds from traffic violations caught using its equipment. It was recently at the center of a controversy in the town of Cary, North Carolina, where it was discovered that in one intersection alone, 31 false violations were reported. The city has since cancelled its contract with Redflex.

---

LINK

quote:

---

the city of Baltimore paid its traffic camera operator $600,000 in early termination fees in 2013 after the Baltimore Sun newspaper ran an exposé on the inaccuracy of the automated systems. Baltimore got off easy compared to some other towns. US PIRG reports that Houston was threatened with a $25 million bill from its vendor for early termination, and San Bernardino was threatened with a $1.8 million bill. The same report states that the Houston suburb of Baytown, Texas had to pay $1 million to get rid of its cameras.

---

quote:

---

when the infractions don't generate enough revenue to cover that flat fee, then down come the cameras.

---

Clearly it's all about the money, then, huh?

quote:

---

If the flat fee is 3,000 per month, and the intersection generates 3,200 in fines (I'm sure my math isn't perfect, but for illustrative purposes, it works), then the company is keeping "up to" 86!percent of the revenue.

---

I addressed this before I saw this post.

quote:

---

These are called "contracts."

---

I know what a contract is. Point is, public safety never enters the equation. We have departments and private companies profiting from dangerous situations. What happens if a traffic cam miraculously eliminates all accidents and light runners? Huge win for public safety, but it wouldn't generate a dime in revenue. It would be taken down. Disagree?

Look, I understand the money grabs.

But, in most of the situations, it does not involve a Dilemma Zone issue where people find themselves without time-space to stop safely. Rather, these folks can very well approach in a more reasonable manner. Is it 100% perfect? No.

Also, on the frequency of rear-end crashes, if the deployment discourages one 90-degree angle fatal collision while incurring a half dozen minor rear end collisions, its a win.

Bottom line: approach the intersection reasonably and proceed in a safe/lawful manner, you will NOT have a ticket issued. Lace it with all the conspiracies you want, it wont change the fact you won't get a ticket. On the very off chance the DZ catches you, well, then it sucks.

quote:

---

How do you propose stopping a red-light runner from entering an intersection? Zap it with a laser or have metal spikes pop up to blow their tires?

---

I explained in an earlier post, but I'll repeat.

First and foremost you DON'T GIVE THE CROSS TRAFFIC A GREEN LIGHT. If it's clear that a vehicle can't stop in time for the red, don't let other cars drive in front of him. This is pretty simple.

Now, since we're talking about full-on T-bone collisions, this means the light-runner is extremely late (not a ticky-tacky split second runner). These are either maniacs doing it intentionally, or people not paying attention. Surely the latter case is MUCH more likely, correct? So like I said earlier, get his/her attention. Flash the red light, make it brighter, blare a train horn. Be proactive in preventing an injury. Will it be 100% effective? No, but it's a billion percent better than letting them cruise right through just to collect a fricking fine.

Are you at all familiar with how an automated, traffic signal controller operates?

Explain to me how you are going to determine a potential red light runner (approach velocity vs distance)in a way that holds all traffic for a time that doesn't become problematic. That's effectively what an ALL-RED interval already does. However, it has been shown that beyond 2.0s drivers become doubtful of the controllers operation and begin advancing….

This idea you propose would extend a 2.0s ALL-RED in most cases which studies show some cars would then still advance.

quote:

---

First and foremost you DON'T GIVE THE CROSS TRAFFIC A GREEN LIGHT. If it's clear that a vehicle can't stop in time for the red, don't let other cars drive in front of him. This is pretty simple.

---

That's a good idea, but is this coupled with eliminating any punitive action against the red-light runner?

If so, then this gives red-light runners carte blanche to run lights with impunity, without fear of anyone entering the intersection.