April

It seems evidence against red light cameras is mounting. The National Motorists Association, an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of motorists, has collected an international group of studies that point to an increase in accidents and accident severity as a result of the cameras.

Studies from the US, Canada, and Australia are cited and one in particular caught our attention. A study out of Ontario showed a 49.9% increase in property damage, and a 4.9% increase in fatalities after the installation of the cameras. If we were cynical, numbers like that would lead us to believe cameras are only there to collect revenue.

________________________________________________

"Chattanooga, Tennessee
The city of Chattanooga was forced refund $8800 in red light cameras tickets issued to motorists trapped by an illegally short yellow time. The refund only occurred after a motorist challenged his citation by insisting that the yellow light time of 3.0 seconds was too short. LaserCraft, the private vendor that runs the camera program in return for a cut of the profits, provided the judge with a computer database that asserted the yellow was 3.8 seconds at that location.

Dallas, Texas
An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

Lubbock, Texas
KBCD, a local television station, exposed the city's short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.

Prior to the news investigation, Lubbock City Engineer Jere Hart assured city council members that he would not increase yellow times. According to the city council's traffic commission minutes of September 19, 2006, Jere said, "if [the red light camera program is] implemented, the public would prefer to have an increased amber cycle," but he stated that, "the program will not adjust the amber/yellow time."

Shortly after the investigation became public, red-light cameras were installed in Lubbock. However, after they proved to be both unprofitable (due in part to a new state law giving 50% of the ticket camera profit to the state) and unsafe (accidents increased where the cameras were installed), they were taken down.

Nashville, Tennessee
Even without red light cameras, police in Nashville, Tennessee have been earning hundreds of thousands in revenue by trapping motorists in conventional ticket traps at city intersections with the shortest yellow warning time.

In 2006, Nashville resident Joe Savage obtained the data on every red light running ticket issued on Broadway street since 2000. He said that yellow lights are longer at intersections along Broadway until the areas where police are issuing tickets. At those locations, Savage clocked the yellow signal time at less than 3 seconds, in violation of both state law and federal regulations. A local newspaper, The Nashville Scene, then confirmed his findings.

Union City, California
In 2005, Union City, California was caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city was forced to refund more than $1 million in red light camera fines.

The city's violation came to light after Dave Goodson, an engineer, received a ticket and realized that he did not have sufficient time to stop before the light had turned red. As a result of his inquiries, Union City's traffic engineers admitted that they had set the yellow signal time at Union City Boulevard and Lowry Road at 3 seconds, despite the state law mandating the time be 4.3 seconds or greater."

<a href="http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/">"full reports"</a>

<a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-redlights_15met.ART.North.Edition1.468120d.html">" city shuts down cameras due lack of revenue"</a>

_______________________________________

""And one should ask the question, if there's a problem with an intersection, why don't safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?

In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that's exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to "use enforcement" instead.

Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the "objective" testimony that they are effective.

A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver's license."

<a href="http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/">"statisics"</a>

ToolmanAR

My uncle worked for Lockheed-Martin, who supplied a number of red-light camera systems. The deal was typically that they got 50% of the generated revenue if the city shortened the yellow and 90% of the revenue if they left it longer. You can guess which one the cities always chose. Safety? Bah.

In addition, many jurisdictions make the area that they call the "intersection" much wider, often extended 20 or more feet past the actual place where the roads cross. Any motorist caught in that zone is issued a ticket, even when it is highly possible that their vehicle is entirely clear of the actual "danger zone."

There's also the fact that statistics can show that red light cameras prevent accidents in intersections. It's true. But accidents AROUND the intersections skyrocket as drivers slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket. Rear-enders go through the roof!

Any honest traffic engineer can tell you that by lengthening the duration of a yellow light will drastically cut down on red-light running. And who the hell thought that red-light running was a major problem in the first place? The number of accidents from them is tiny. They are often severe, but there aren't many people willing to risk running a light for just this reason. The cameras are completely redundant and don't really alter the overall numbers of red light running accidents. That's why they're called accidents--if someone could have avoided it, they would have.

I often think about spray-painting the glass on the front of the box that houses the red light camera near my house. Late at night, who will notice? Call me a conscientious objector. If we don't tell our politicians that we've had enough, they'll keep selling this to dopes who actually believe this is a problem.

Gah, this makes me angry.

audikillsbmw

And they need to be fvcking punished for that. It should be done in an honest way though.

April

but red light cameras don't seem to cut back on the numbers. It's always like driving in a war zone in those places. More cops just hanging out and handing out tickets for things they witness might help. Those areas have really low actual crime rates, so I'm not sure what they do the rest of the time.

Shortening the yellow light to less than the allowed limit would seem to open up the city and camera company to liability if one were rear ended.

kkemp

... when they shut off some of the cameras because (as they freely admitted) they weren't meeting revenue goals. So much for them being there to save lives.

Cargasm2.7

They also assume guilt....unconstitutional

OCDboy

Glad to hear everyone is figuring it out.

kkemp

Most tickets contain wording to the effect that by paying the fine you are pleading guilty to the accusation of the ticket. Why would traffic camera tickets be any different?

You could go to court where there would be a presumption of innocence, the camera's photograph and other info is admitted as evidence, you're found guilty. I don't see much problem in that at least from a guilt/innocence point of view.

I could be totally off base, who knows. They just need to go away fast

ESN

the validity of the timing sequence by proving that the sequence violated state MV guidelines. That's a lot dicier a proposition.