I Hate Red Light Cameras!

[TRMark]

The Montana legislature declared them illegal about a month ago. My city was considering installing them. Kinda have mixed thoughts about that. I am getting real tired of watching the idiots cruise through red lights in a 2+ton SUV while jabbering on a cell phone. At the same time I have a real problem with robo cops and the local municipalities endless search for money. My preference would be to legalize the use of cell phone jammers.

 

[RomanH]

At first I liked the idea of getting the people who continuously run through red lights. But many of the most egregious violators around the Chicago area don't get penalized since they are driving with phony temporary tags and can't be "found".
Also red light cameras do nothing but generate revenue for the municipalities and companies who operate them . Numerous recent studies have shown that these devices actually increase the number of rear end collisions instead of increasing safety.
They should be banned!

 

[AngliaGT]

I can't win!I got a letter in the mail from
the City of Rocklin,CA,(East of Sacramento)informing
me of another Red light ticket,in my '68 Ford F250.
Again,not speeding,just in an unfimiliar area with
a lot of congestion.I haven't received the bill yet,
but I'm hoping it won't be $435 (again).
I think I'll let my wife drive in the "Big Cities".
I don't know where the money's coming from,either.

- Doug

 

[swift6]

Also red light cameras do nothing but generate revenue for the municipalities and companies who operate them . Numerous recent studies have shown that these devices actually increase the number of rear end collisions instead of increasing safety.

Can't argue with that. We have a few red light camera intersections in Fort Collins and a few mobile radar vehicles. (None of the tickets assess points against your license.) Rear end collisions do increase for a short period on a new red light intersection. Especially when two to three cars try stacking up on the first guy running the red light, trying to "sneak" through. After the locals get used to the red light intersections those rear end collisions should start to drop off or at least decrease in severity. Also, the rear end collisions are generally much less damaging to people and cars as T-Bone accidents that occur when a car runs a red light and hits a car crossing the intersection perpendicular to the red light.

I've suffered a high speed hit from the rear and would have been much worse off had it been a side impact at the same speed.

Similar arguments are used against introducing round-a-bouts. There can be an increase in accidents until people get used to the new style of intersection, but they are glancing blow accidents opposed to side impact as well.

 

[RonMacPherson]

Here in Hawaii, the legislature is probably going to implement the cameras as money fund... One study was done a while back and confirmed that most municipalities which install the cameras shorten the yellow light time. Most modern urban communities lengthen the yellow light to 4-5 seconds. After the cameras installed, the yellow time drops a couple seconds, leaving less time to exit the intersection if you are stuck in a traffic flow....


Sad when the search for safety improvement becomes ba***rdized in a search for funds....

 

[martx-5]

Shortening the yellow lights has been going on all over the place, but they can be fought, and several cities have been forced to lengthen them for safety reasons. As a result, many of these cities have just abandoned the red light cameras.

Here's a website devoted to the problem. If you click on the standards link you will see the required time a light should be yellow according to the posted speed limit. There have been many cases where people have gone back and timed yellow lights, found them short according to recommendations, gone to court and had them changed. Sometimes you just have to take a stand.

Fortunately, I haven't experienced any red light cameras here on Long Island.

Edit: Here's some info on six cities that got caught in the short yellow light for profit scheme.

 

[swift6]

Fort Collins actually extended the yellow light times when they installed the red-light cameras. The intersections that have them used to have a very high accident rate so they were done as a deterrent/safety measure more so than a revenue generator. Since the red-light cameras have gone up, accident rates at those intersections have gone down. Yes, there was a spike of rear-end collisions but even those have reduced now.

If you are in the intersection as the light turns red, the cameras will not fire as "technically" you have not run the red light. The cameras only fire if you ENTER the intersection after the red lights have illuminated. This often makes it look like the cars entering the intersection on red are just outside of the intersection. Of course the faster they are driving, the further into the intersection the car will be.

The mobile radar vans in Fort Collins are not designed to be purely revenue generators either. They are set for 10mph over the posted speed limit. The average speed that they catch city wide is 13 mph over the posted speed limit. They are designed to be corrective for excessive speeding.

All that being said, many municipalities do set these types of things up solely as revenue generators. I'm happy that I happen to not be in one of those.

 

[Sarastro]

I like the system in Finland. There, traffic fines are based on your income, and the courts have access to your salary info (presumably through tax filings) so they know how much you make.

A while ago there was a news report of some spoiled rich brat driving his Ferrari recklessly through Helsinki, figuring he could just pay the fine. He got hit with a traffic ticket for a quarter million bucks! Gotta love it...!

 

[RomanH]

After the locals get used to the red light intersections those rear end collisions should start to drop off or at least decrease in severity. Also, the rear end collisions are generally much less damaging to people and cars as T-Bone accidents that occur when a car runs a red light and hits a car crossing the intersection perpendicular to the red light.

Any collision of any severity is one too many when it is caused, even partially by governmental policy.

 

[vagt6]

Any collision of any severity is one too many when it is caused, even partially by governmental policy. [/quote]

I wonder if you'd continue to take that stance if someone you loved was killed/murdered by a red light runner?

Food for thought . . .

 

[JamesWilson]

After the locals get used to the red light intersections those rear end collisions should start to drop off or at least decrease in severity. Also, the rear end collisions are generally much less damaging to people and cars as T-Bone accidents that occur when a car runs a red light and hits a car crossing the intersection perpendicular to the red light.

Any collision of any severity is one too many when it is caused, even partially by governmental policy.

But this is a completely impossible standard.

Your requirement "any collision of any severity" is contradictory:

If "government policy" is to NOT install the cameras and that "even partically" allows red light runners to cause accidents they'd be violating your extreme standard too.

If "government policy" is to install the cameras and that "even partically" allows tailgaters to cause accidents they'd be violating your extreme standard too.

"Goverment policy" just can't win- do it and accidents of one kind happen, don't do it and accidents of another kind occur.

From a strictly utilitarian analysis it'd seem you'd favor the reduction of severe accidents and injury caused by those that run lights over the increase in minor accidents by the tailgaters.

 

[martx-5]

Maybe we should just get rid of the traffic controls altogether... It seems to work quite well in India! :laugh:

 

[swift6]

After the locals get used to the red light intersections those rear end collisions should start to drop off or at least decrease in severity. Also, the rear end collisions are generally much less damaging to people and cars as T-Bone accidents that occur when a car runs a red light and hits a car crossing the intersection perpendicular to the red light.

Any collision of any severity is one too many when it is caused, even partially by governmental policy.

I guess the drivers that follow too closely and do not pay attention in traffic are not to blame either?

 

[JamesWilson]

It seems to work quite well in India! :laugh:

Kidney Donors on wheels.... :frown:

 

[vagt6]

In practically all cases, if you rear-end another car in traffic, you're at-fault. Following too closely and/or not paying attention and/or excessive speed.

Rear end collisions have nothing to do with the traffic signals or red light cameras.

Strange, meaningless argument, really.

 

[JamesWilson]

Rear end collisions have nothing to do with the traffic signals or red light cameras.

Strange, meaningless argument, really.

<span style="font-size: 11pt">You're wrong. Utterly wrong.

Red light cameras will cause people to stop more quickly than they did previously to avoid an increased possibility of being fined, and thus being likely to cause a short-term increase in accidents by less attentive tailgaters. As one of the earlier posters stated:</span>

Rear end collisions do increase for a short period on a new red light intersection. Especially when two to three cars try stacking up on the first guy running the red light, trying to "sneak" through. After the locals get used to the red light intersections those rear end collisions should start to drop off or at least decrease in severity. Also, the rear end collisions are generally much less damaging to people and cars as T-Bone accidents that occur when a car runs a red light and hits a car crossing the intersection perpendicular to the red light.

<span style="font-size: 11pt">The argument is nether strange nor meaningless, just well founded based on readily observable behaviour.

Again, your argument that "government policy" in enforcing traffic laws must never have any negative consequence is the one that is nonsensical and completely unreal.

Besides, what's your argument against actually enforcing this specific traffic law?

What is truly strange and meaningless is to argue that lax enforcement somehow promotes public safety. </span>

It would not.

 

[RomanH]

After the locals get used to the red light intersections those rear end collisions should start to drop off or at least decrease in severity. Also, the rear end collisions are generally much less damaging to people and cars as T-Bone accidents that occur when a car runs a red light and hits a car crossing the intersection perpendicular to the red light.

Any collision of any severity is one too many when it is caused, even partially by governmental policy.

I would like to retract this statement. It was not well thought out.
My intent was not to make the argument that we should not enforce traffic laws. Lord knows I have been hit more than my far share over the years by red light runners and inattentive drivers.

 

[TRMark]

Maybe we should just get rid of the traffic controls altogether... It seems to work quite well in India! :laugh:

Traffic circles have come to Montana. I am sure we will look about like the video from India. When you come to a oneway street around here you look both ways. If you come upon a 1 ton dually with three cowboy hats and Wyoming or Montana high number license plate prefix (small county) be ready for anything.

 

[vagt6]

Rear end collisions have nothing to do with the traffic signals or red light cameras.

Strange, meaningless argument, really.

<span style="font-size: 11pt">You're wrong. Utterly wrong.

Red light cameras will cause people to stop more quickly than they did previously to avoid an increased possibility of being fined, and thus being likely to cause a short-term increase in accidents by less attentive tailgaters. As one of the earlier posters stated:</span>


James, I'm simply saying that the vast majority of rear end collisions are entirely avoidable, and caused by inattentive/bad drivers. It's <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> the traffic signal that is the root cause of any rear end collision: it's <span style="font-style: italic">following too closely</span>, excessive speed, and/or "distracted driving" (the bane of modern motoring).

Further, if we safely and astutely observe the "3 second rule" (e.g., maintain proper/safe spacing relative to vehicle speed), concentrate on driving and observe the posted speed limit, then practically no rear end collisions will occur. Period.

To test your argument, above, perhaps you might try to tell the police officer who arrives after <span style="text-decoration: underline">your</span> next rear end collision that the <span style="font-style: italic">traffic signal</span> was at fault and caused you to smash the car in front of you! Sadly, I don't think you'll get any sympathy from the cops: you'll get a citation and you'll pay for the damages (and, I don't think your insurer will buy your traffic signal culpability hypothesis, either).

BTW, have you ever seen a cop issue a ticket to a traffic signal??

 

[Keoke]

Well you might be joking about that rear end collision bit. However, that problem along with the negative economics is causing some municipalities to turn down camera installations.--Fwiw--Keoke