Comments on: Study Says Red Light Cameras Cause Death, Mayhem, Acne

By: Traffic Cameras are no Boon | Bili Buzz

Traffic Cameras are no Boon | Bili Buzz — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:18:17 +0000

[...] The Agitator Share and [...]

By: SayUncle » Revenue err Red light cameras

SayUncle » Revenue err Red light cameras — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:46:30 +0000

[...] Study says the cause accidents. [...]

By: Max D.

Max D. — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:33:08 +0000

“Women, Minorities Hit Hardest.”

Isn’t there an argument against red light cameras on Constitutional grounds?

Related: The ongoing war against Gatsos in the UK is civil disobedience at its most entertaining.

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

By: supercat

supercat — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:40:07 +0000

A motorist who enters an intersection 0.5 seconds after his light turns red (that’s not even close to making the light) will generally cause far less danger to other motorists than one who tries to stop at a yellow light but either is unable to do so, or is in front of someone else who is unable to do so. Indeed, the only circumstance in which missing a light be 0.5 seconds would cause an accident in the absence of gross negligence by another motorist would be if someone making a late left turn is expecting him to stop. Even there, such assumption would generally be unreasonable on the part of the person making the turn unless the late-entering motorist had given some indication of stopping.

To be sure, someone who enters an intersection 0.5 seconds late, thereby delaying other motorists, does commit a significant courtesy violation and should probably receive some sort of citation for that. I am unaware, however, of any effort to impose a fine scale that distinguishes safety violations from courtesy violations.

BTW, if someone enters an intersection 0.5 seconds late, do any of the camera systems delay the opposing green? If not, such failure would demonstrate a lack of real interest in safety.

By: central texas

central texas — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:10:53 +0000

I suppose that the increased number and effectiveness of passive passenger restraint could not possibly have anything to do with that decrease in INJURIES (as opposed to collisions…)?

One would also suppose that if the intent was to improve safety, the cameras would be installed in demonstrably dangerous intersections. Since I have not had the time to read the study (assuming that the actual text is available rather than the collection of sound bites) I wonder whether the intersections with cameras became more dangerous.

It would also be interesting to understand what effect concealing the camera might have. If one could not predict which red light was “safe” to run, then perhaps folks would consider the silly notion of stopping for all red lights. A grave imposition on freedom to be sure, but perhaps otherwise desirable.

And by the by, did anyone else notice that the author who appears most eager to provide sound bites just had a lawsuit dismissed after she rear ended someone? They never get around to actually asking the $64 question: Did she rear end someone who stopped for a red light? At a camera equiped intersection?

Lots of interesting oxen to be gored here.

By: Against Stupidity

Against Stupidity — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:16:26 +0000

How many cities would be inclined to install red light cameras, if the fines collected went to the state general fund and any municipal funding received from the state could not be based on the amount of fines collected?

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:39:13 +0000

This reminds me of city council meetings where they blankly listen to arguments against some proposal on the table only to pass the proposal without discussion immediate after the conclusion of those objections. You get the distinct impression that the decision was made in a back room before the meeting and that actual citizen involvement is nothing more than an annoying formality.

In other words, red light cameras are here to stay no matter how much evidence city governments are forced to ignore to keep them.

By: Not That David

Not That David — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:35:50 +0000

So, I wonder, did the study control for that? Are camera-fied intersections less safe because of the cameras, or because intersections fitted with cameras are typically also altered in other ways?

Granted, it probably comes to the same thing in the end, given the temptation to maximize revenue. Still, it seems worth asking.