red light cameras net $2.85 million, increase accidents

[googe]

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-countys-red-light-cameras-net-2-85-million-increase/

Anne Arundel County in Maryland has been running five red light cameras for five years, during which period they raised a fat $2.85 million in ticket revenue. Unfortunately, a comparison of accident statistics shows that the cameras have increased the rate of accidents.

Immediately after installation, the cameras sparked a 40-percent increase in rear-end collisions, and never looked back, with five-year increases in accident rates far exceeding a 10-percent increase in traffic.

Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated phenomenon. TheNewspaper.com reports similar results in the state of Georgia, where the city of Duluth's one and only camera is forecast to generate a whopping $1 million next year, at the cost of a 21-percent increase in accidents. A study by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showed red light cameras were linked to an increase in accidents, injuries and revenues across the state, although there is early indication that the rate of serious accidents in intersections is falling.

Critics charge that cities are at best trading one kind of accident for another, and that the proliferation of traffic cameras is really just a money generator, while advocates maintain that they encourage safer driving.

[Xtrema]

Run a red light and get t-bone or get tapped in the ass, I'll take the latter please.

Plus, if you get tapped or tapped others, it's either

A) you did not drive properly and time your approach to the light.

B) you follow too close, too fast.

[skandalouz_08]

yeah I'd take getting rear ended any day rather than t-boned, red light camera's are stupid and while they make people stop sometimes people that could go through just don't because they don't want to risk a ticket

[rvd]

cash grab, thanks for coming out.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Run a red light and get t-bone or get tapped in the ass, I'll take the latter please.

Plus, if you get tapped or tapped others, it's either

A) you did not drive properly and time your approach to the light.

B) you follow too close, too fast.

:werd: :werd: :werd: :werd: :werd:

Unfortunately now we will have to listen to all of the "cash grab" homos.

[gran turismo]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Run a red light and get t-bone or get tapped in the ass, I'll take the latter please.

Plus, if you get tapped or tapped others, it's either

A) you did not drive properly and time your approach to the light.

B) you follow too close, too fast.

Exactly!

I don't understand how anyone can argue against red light cameras. You only get a ticket if you totally run the light. You don't get a ticket if the light changes red and you're halfway through the intersection.

[googe]

Originally posted by gran turismo


Exactly!

I don't understand how anyone can argue against red light cameras.

And I dont understand how anyone can argue against simple math.

If we put cameras in to decrease accidents, and they are INCREASING accidents, doesnt that mean they didnt work? Not only do they not work, but theyre making the accident problem WORSE. In that case they shouldnt be there, thats a no-brainer.

Id be curious what the stats are in Calgary. I actually think I remember hearing there was a decrease in accidents at our intersections though. If thats the case, I wonder what we are doing differently.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by googe


And I dont understand how anyone can argue against simple math.

If we put cameras in to decrease accidents, and they are INCREASING accidents, doesnt that mean they didnt work? Not only do they not work, but theyre making the accident problem WORSE. In that case they shouldnt be there, thats a no-brainer.

Id be curious what the stats are in Calgary. I actually think I remember hearing there was a decrease in accidents at our intersections though. If thats the case, I wonder what we are doing differently.

If people drove properly there would be ZERO rear-ender accidents PERIOD. Regardless of how icy it is outside or what jumps in front of the car ahead of you.

[yellowsnow]

the person following was either a) was planning to run the red light with you, b) was following too close c) wasn't paying attention.

so yeah, a lot of bad drivers out there. but 9.9/10 times, the person rear ending is responsible for the damages/insurance, etc.

[kenny]

Originally posted by googe
If we put cameras in to decrease accidents, and they are INCREASING accidents, doesnt that mean they didnt work? Not only do they not work, but theyre making the accident problem WORSE. In that case they shouldnt be there, thats a no-brainer.


Red light cameras decrease serious accidents (while increasing not-as-serious accidents). People need to learn how to judge when the light is about to change and either speed up or slow down. With that said, YES it is definitely a cash grab but as long as they arent grabbing it from me, I'm fine with it. lol

[rage2]

Originally posted by Xtrema
Run a red light and get t-bone or get tapped in the ass, I'll take the latter please.

Plus, if you get tapped or tapped others, it's either

A) you did not drive properly and time your approach to the light.

B) you follow too close, too fast.

Originally posted by skandalouz_08
yeah I'd take getting rear ended any day rather than t-boned, red light camera's are stupid and while they make people stop sometimes people that could go through just don't because they don't want to risk a ticket

Originally posted by sputnik
:werd: :werd: :werd: :werd: :werd:

Unfortunately now we will have to listen to all of the "cash grab" homos.

Originally posted by gran turismo
Exactly!

I don't understand how anyone can argue against red light cameras. You only get a ticket if you totally run the light. You don't get a ticket if the light changes red and you're halfway through the intersection.

Originally posted by kenny
Red light cameras decrease serious accidents (while increasing not-as-serious accidents). People need to learn how to judge when the light is about to change and either speed up or slow down. With that said, YES it is definitely a cash grab but as long as they arent grabbing it from me, I'm fine with it. lol
You guys should dig deeper. Nowhere does the article state that T-bone, or properly referred to as angle accidents, were reduced. Your odds of getting t-boned are the same, camera or not. Rear end accidents have gone up, and that's it. SERIOUS ACCIDENTS DO NOT DECREASE. In fact, they increase because getting rear ended can be pretty serious if a Hummer runs into a Geo Metro.

Articles with basic descriptions are posted here:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

Let's assume you're a great driver driving a 1990 civic on Crowchild (speed limit 80km/h) following a bad driver in a SL65 AMG with MASSIVE brakes. He has ABS, you don't. Both going 80. Light turns yellow, Mr. SL65 is gonna stop because he doesn't want to pay for his ticket cuz those lease payments on that AMG is pricey. You're gonna smoke Mr. SL65, pure and simple, it's physics, regardless of how "safe" of a distance you're following. This is why the red light camera system is flawed, most people like Mr. SL65 doesn't understand that if you can run yellows safely, you won't get ticketed (but oh... the cops can ticket you for running that yellow :D)

[snowboard]

haha when im coming up to a light with red lights cameras i usually hesitate casue i dont know if i should risk a ticket or not.

there funny though, cause one time i pulled up to a red light, and then after sitting there like 30 40 seconds, i pulled around the median island type thing and turned right, and it flashed haha, never got a ticket though

[benyl]

Originally posted by Xtrema
get tapped in the ass, I'll take the latter please.



Originally posted by skandalouz_08
yeah I'd take getting rear ended

these guys seem to like the brokeback action... hahaha

[rage2]

Wow, did I manage to silence yet another thread by digging up the truth? My bad :D.

[kenny]

Originally posted by rage2

Let's assume you're a great driver driving a 1990 civic on Crowchild (speed limit 80km/h) following a bad driver in a SL65 AMG with MASSIVE brakes. He has ABS, you don't. Both going 80. Light turns yellow, Mr. SL65 is gonna stop because he doesn't want to pay for his ticket cuz those lease payments on that AMG is pricey. You're gonna smoke Mr. SL65, pure and simple, it's physics, regardless of how "safe" of a distance you're following. This is why the red light camera system is flawed, most people like Mr. SL65 doesn't understand that if you can run yellows safely, you won't get ticketed (but oh... the cops can ticket you for running that yellow :D)

No cop would ever give a ticket for a yellow light violation if they were going speed limit and would have to slam on brakes just to stop. Its a tough situation I guess for people to learn when to stop and when to go, the only people they ticket from what it seems are those that accelerate just to make it through the yellow.

The red light camera system was a big change in the ways we have to use our roadways. Just because its a significant change that is not being adopted rapidly, does not mean it is flawed. Drivers have developed a bad habit and the red light camera system exploits this habit to bring money into the system.

Unfortunately in the example you provided, the civic driver is gonna get owned for slamming into the SL65. Is it fair? probably not but the idea is over time drivers will learn to maintain their speed if necessary to cruise through the intersections safely and stop if they are far enough away without slamming their brakes.



Originally posted by rage2
You guys should dig deeper. Nowhere does the article state that T-bone, or properly referred to as angle accidents, were reduced. Your odds of getting t-boned are the same, camera or not. Rear end accidents have gone up, and that's it. SERIOUS ACCIDENTS DO NOT DECREASE. In fact, they increase because getting rear ended can be pretty serious if a Hummer runs into a Geo Metro.

I am not basing my conclusions on anything I read in that article. You cannot use "In fact" when there is no fact being mentioned. For every study that shows a decrease in t-bones, you'll find one that talks about an increase. Nobody knows the whole truth. I am basing my comments on the premise that if people are slamming on their brakes to avoid the red light ticket, they are also avoiding a t-bone accident. Are these people getting rear ended as a result? definitely possible.

[iceburns288]

Originally posted by rage2
Wow, did I manage to silence yet another thread by digging up the truth? My bad :D.

Hey, I'm not gay, man...:banghead:

[googe]

Originally posted by sputnik


If people drove properly there would be ZERO rear-ender accidents PERIOD. Regardless of how icy it is outside or what jumps in front of the car ahead of you.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
the person following was either a) was planning to run the red light with you, b) was following too close c) wasn't paying attention.

so yeah, a lot of bad drivers out there. but 9.9/10 times, the person rear ending is responsible for the damages/insurance, etc.

i think you guys missed the point...yes its your own fault for running a light. the issue is are cameras helping the problem, or making it worse. and if its making it worse, why is it there. obviously, the profits are worth more to them than public safety.

[googe]

Originally posted by rage2



You guys should dig deeper. Nowhere does the article state that T-bone, or properly referred to as angle accidents, were reduced. Your odds of getting t-boned are the same, camera or not.


actually, they increased too ;)


Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."


Originally posted by rage2

Rear end accidents have gone up, and that's it. SERIOUS ACCIDENTS DO NOT DECREASE. In fact, they increase because getting rear ended can be pretty serious if a Hummer runs into a Geo Metro.


nice:



A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found:
"The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."



Study: Cameras Increase Fatal Rear End Accidents (Ontario)
A December 2003 study sponsored by the Ontario, Canada government finds increase in accidents and fatal rear-end collisions from red light camera use.

these are good too:



Buckingham Speed Camera Study
UK/Australia study shows speed cameras reversed a decades-long trend toward fewer accidents.

Speed enforcement has completely lost touch with reality," said Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign. "Clearly the camera partnerships are not making the roads safer, yet, meanwhile, millions of drivers are being penalised for doing exactly what we need them to do, and that's drive at a safe and appropriate speed according to the conditions."

Department of Transport statistics also showed an increase in crashes on roads in Tayside, Scotland, despite the use of camera enforcement. The area experienced 320 fatal crashes in 1993, but 368 crashes this year. Injury accidents climbed to 1453 from 1398.



Secret UK Study: Speed Cameras Increase Injury Accidents
Full text of suppressed UK government study shows speed cameras increase accidents 31 percent on freeways, 55 percent in work zones.

Study: Speed Cameras Do Nothing in Freeway Construction Zones
UK government-sponsored study shows speed cameras have no effect in construction zone.

[Police]

Originally posted by benyl




these guys seem to like the brokeback action... hahaha

ROFL :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[heavyD]

Yes it's a cash grab but running a red light is pretty well one of the most dangerous traffic offenses you can make. If they make even a 1% decrease in people running red lights its worth any increases in rear end incidents. People follow cars too close these days, plain & simple. Every day I see people following far too closely behind others sometimes shockingly close. Odds are that if they don't rear end someone at a red light camera intersection, they will rear end someone somewhere sometime.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rage2
Let's assume you're a great driver driving a 1990 civic on Crowchild (speed limit 80km/h) following a bad driver in a SL65 AMG with MASSIVE brakes. He has ABS, you don't. Both going 80. Light turns yellow, Mr. SL65 is gonna stop because he doesn't want to pay for his ticket cuz those lease payments on that AMG is pricey. You're gonna smoke Mr. SL65, pure and simple, it's physics, regardless of how "safe" of a distance you're following. This is why the red light camera system is flawed, most people like Mr. SL65 doesn't understand that if you can run yellows safely, you won't get ticketed (but oh... the cops can ticket you for running that yellow :D)

If the speed is that fast, there should be advance warning lights that notify driver lights ahead are about to change. If Mr SL65 had the option to run the yellow, that means that Mr Geo who should be about 1-2 cars behind got the warning already and should at least place foot over brake pedal getting ready for a smooth stop and roll up to the stop line.

May be traffic cameras should be more hidden. May be integrated with the light itself so people don't notice it and make stupid mistakes.

[kevie88]

I ride a motorcycle for 6 months of the year and have nearly been rear-ended 5 or 6 times because of people not leaving enough room combined with a red light camera. Luckily I'm thin (on the bike in relation to a car ... I'm actually pretty fat right now haha) and can pull up right next to the traffic on either side. Last year I was missed by a matter of millimeters by a locked-up SUV while stopping short for a red light camera.

I won't accept more rear enders!! Rear enders kill -or worse paralize- people like me all the time.

[benyl]

That is why I stopped riding a bike on the street. People in Calgary don't understand how to drive with bikes. I think that I could only ride a bike in Europe... cause they are everywhere!

[rage2]

Originally posted by kenny
I am not basing my conclusions on anything I read in that article. You cannot use "In fact" when there is no fact being mentioned. For every study that shows a decrease in t-bones, you'll find one that talks about an increase. Nobody knows the whole truth. I am basing my comments on the premise that if people are slamming on their brakes to avoid the red light ticket, they are also avoiding a t-bone accident. Are these people getting rear ended as a result? definitely possible.

Originally posted by heavyD
Yes it's a cash grab but running a red light is pretty well one of the most dangerous traffic offenses you can make. If they make even a 1% decrease in people running red lights its worth any increases in rear end incidents. People follow cars too close these days, plain & simple. Every day I see people following far too closely behind others sometimes shockingly close. Odds are that if they don't rear end someone at a red light camera intersection, they will rear end someone somewhere sometime.
Before I reply to these 2, let me state that I am not a traffic expert, but I'm basing my post on 15 years of driving experience, and seeing accidents happen right in front of me. It seems that a lot of people believe that red light cameras make drivers (potential red light runners) slam on the brakes, and thus avoid a T-bone accident. Here's where I believe this is a flawed assumption.

I've witnessed about 5 t-bone accidents before. Each one was from a dazed driver not paying attention, and just running a light that's been red for a long time. I'm following the guy, he's going under speed limit, and just blows thru the red while I slow down and watch the drama unfold. My dad has done this, my boss has done this and got into a huge accident. Lack of attention. I see this a few times a year, luckily, only 5 I've seen resulted in accidents.

The red light cameras deter red light runners that are trying to beat the light. These people are out to beat the light, and well aware of it. They'll run the light 1 or 2 seconds into the red. In Calgary, other than downtown, once the light turns red, there's a 2 second delay until it's green on the other side. These red light runners are pushing their luck hoping it's still red on the other end, and have a significantly lower chance of collision compared to the zoned out red light runner.

Now, if you're a zoned out driver, will you care for the red light camera sitting there? Nope, you won't even know, and this is why I believe red light camera intersections are seeing higher rear end rates (ticket avoidance and carelessness by others around them) and no decrease in T-bone accidents (camera doesn't affect zoned out drivers).

Discuss.