National Motorists Association Challenges Cities To Prove Red-Light Cameras Are Safer
from the put-up-or-shut-up dept
Over the years, we've had a number of posts about studies showing that red-light cameras tend to increase the number of accidents, even as cities that install them claim that they're doing so for safety reasons. The problem appears to be that red-light cameras cause more people to slam on the brakes at the last second, leading to more rear-ender collisions. Plenty of studies have shown that if you really want safer intersections, the solution is rather simple: increase the length of time for yellow lights and include a pause after a light turns red before the cross-traffic signal turns green. Some cities already do this, but many do not. A big part of the problem is that red-light cameras are big money makers for municipalities, who share the revenue with the makers of the cameras -- who have every incentive in the world to set the traffic lights to encourage more violations, rather than fewer. To give proof to the lie that municipalities are installing red-light cameras for safety reasons, the National Motorists Association is now offering $10,000 to cities (found via The Agitator) if it can't reduce by 50% the number of red-light violations using regular traffic engineering. They're only looking to do this at camera-enforced intersections that still have high numbers of violations. Of course, if the NMA can show such a reduction, the city would then be required to remove its red-light camera systems. What are the chances any city takes the NMA up on this challenge?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: red-light cameras, traffic, traffic accidents
Companies: national motorists association
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If you get rear ended we the car in back is at fault. You need to leave room to actually stop if the car ahead does so. If he was going fast enough to rear end you he would have run the light as well.
If Red light cameras pay for something useful along the way so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In addition at the red light camera by my house the yellow used to be 6 seconds. (its a 45 mph road) After the red light camera got installed the yellow miraculously became ~4 seconds. If it is raining there is no way that you can stop. Cameras are blatant money grab and I always vote against anyone that advocates their use.
mkam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I never said that and to say that I did is misleading at the best or just downright dishonest at the worst. Anybody can look right up above to see what was actually said, so you're not fooling anyone.
Having said that, there is a traffic light about 10 minutes from where I live on a roadway with a 65 MPH limit. There are, of course, warning signs and flashing light leading up to it and it has an adequate yellow period.
Besides that is atleast 15MPH over the speed limit around here- More likely 35 MPH over.
More likely? You don't know? What are you, one of those twits who drives so slowly that you've never even bothered to notice what the actual speed limits are? If you really do live in some part of the country with a 35 MPH maximum speed limit (my state used to be 55 years ago), then all I can say is that it must suck to live where you do, but not my problem.
You should be getting a ticket for something at those speeds on a surface road.
My state has a lot of 70 MPH roadways. You may think we should all be getting tickets but I think you should just stay where the max is 35. And even at 35 you're still a dangerous driver if you think that rear end collisions are caused by speed rather than following distance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I live outside DC where through the miracle of elections and foreign embassies they dump the worst drivers in the world. Besides that and population density we are fortunate to have one of top five bad commutes in the country. We are generally fortunate if the highway speeds are near forty at rush hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe, but a millisecond still just isn't enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as the red light cameras and rear-ender issues, I completely agree with John Duncan Yoyo, "If he was going fast enough to rear end you he would have run the light as well."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The trouble with delays...
I was taught that Amber meant STOP unless it was unsafe to do so. These days I know better - amber means FLOOR IT!!!
Give people an inch and they will take a yard.
Bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In America, pretty much all traffic enforcement is nothing but a giant money making opportunity.
Back in the 90's I read that congress comissioned a report on how speed limits where set. What they found was not what they wanted to find. The average speed of cars on a road was taken, then 10 miles per hours was SUBTRACTED from that average and that was the speed limit. See any problems with that?
The other big one is just arbitrary lines for municipalities etc. And of course the classic speed traps, 45 to 25 around a corner, then back up to 45.
It's a game about revenue. Noboby really cares about safety in govenment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calculating speed limits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Cameras
Both were instances where the camera was placed quite deliberately (i.e. they put it aiming at the left turn lane, where it's left on arrow only, the green lasts about 5 seconds, and there is usually a line 4-5 light changes long). Both were not even my fault -- I was on pace to make the light, and some idiot in front of me jams on the brakes at the green causing me to *just* miss the light (literally I was ONE FOOT past the line in first citation).
I know that these tickets have done one thing to me -- If I am on approach towards a light that I know has a camera (the number of which seems to double on a weekly basis here in Dallas, TX), if the light is green I am very heavy on the gas to make darn sure it stays green when I go through it, or if the light turns yellow I'm gonna smoke those tires to make darn sure I'm gonna stop in time. Bottom line is it doesn't matter green or yellow, these things are making people drive like absolute maniacs.
Another point people have not brought up is what about the super-bright, obnoxious flashes in the face of people coming other directions? There are MANY cases where one direction of traffic is stopped by red while opposite direction remains green. IF you've ever had one of the cameras aimed at opposite flow start flashing in your face, it is QUITE blinding and happens at the instant you are entering an intersection at speed.
What will it take to GET RID OF THESE PUBLIC NUISANCES?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Cameras
High powered rifle and careful aim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red Light Cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Red Light Cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Near where I live is a light that periodically turns green and within 1 second turns yellow. How is anyone supposed to get through that light and NOT be cited for running a red light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to get rid of things like this is to just voluntarily agree to send them a montly tithe instead, at least that way it won't raise your insurance rates. :)
I've had no tickets in 15 years (knock on wood) and I drive very defensively as if I'm always being watched, which more and more is the case, bribe the local "traffic tax" collectors (ie cops), and generally have learned to talk my way out of quite a bit of things.
Get one of those silly FOP stickers for your car, yes it's another "tax" on you, but it does help and if dealing with a real cop make sure they see it.
And that's the other problem with cameras, the system of selective enforcement as a revenue generator has built into it human interaction element. Camera's don't have that. FOP stickers don't work, bribes don't work, friendly faces don't work. humm... I bet late night attacks on the cameras probably work. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by Land of the Free
haha amen to that... seriously though... if people really want to do away with these cameras this is most definitely the way to do it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red light camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue Enancement
In summary, TheNewspaper.com wrote: "San Diego Wants to Adjust Cameras to Issue More Tickets
San Diego, California will shorten grace periods to make more money from red light cameras that have increased accidents in the city.
Since they were first installed in 1998 red light cameras in San Diego have never reduced accidents, but they have generated millions for the city -- $16,279,772 until a Superior Court declared the program illegal in 2001. The city recently restarted ticketing, but officials are not satisfied with the amount of money they have been raising. In response, Mayor Jerry Sanders is now proposing either to drop the program entirely or adjust camera settings to trap more motorists at stoplights.
Mayor Sanders told KGTV television that he wants to reduce the amount of time allowed after a light changes from yellow to red before a ticket is issued. This "grace time," according to a 2002 audit, ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 seconds in San Diego. Sanders proposes to drop it to a lightning-quick 0.1 seconds to issue even more citations and bolster the program's income.
"We see about a 9 percent decrease for red light runners," Sanders said. "Most cities using it more widely with a 0.1-second delay actually see up to a 40 percent decrease."
In 2000, motorists caught San Diego using illegally short yellow times at intersections that had red light cameras. Court action forced the city quietly to increase the yellow time at a number of intersections with the number of violations instantly dropping. At Mission Bay and Grand Avenue, for example, violations dropped from a rate of 363.4 per 100 enforcement hours to an average of 42.2 the day after the yellow was lengthened.
Court documents from 2001 proved that, excluding the intersections with increased yellow time, every red light camera intersection in the city had an increase in accidents, or saw no benefit. San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano confirmed this in an interview on Nightline: "And it's true in a few intersections we found a few more accidents than prior to the red light photo enforcement. At some intersections we saw no change at all, and at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents." Accidents have also not dropped under the current red light program."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light cameras
Regardless of whether the absolute number of accidents increase or decrease with the use of cameras (and since it's a relatively new trend, I doubt that there is enough long-term data to say one way or another in most locales), I would wager that after a few months, the number of serious accidents (i.e., life-threatening and substantial vehicle damage) decrease substantially.
Check the trends after 3 - 5 years of use, then get back with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
flashing green notification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not an excuse
The laws aren’t there to make money, but to save lives. If politicians are abusing them by getting easy money at the expense of making the roads safer, then that needs to be addressed. But it’s not an excuse to break the law (and neither is patriotic rubbish like ‘That’s America!”).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not an excuse
You must be delusional if you believe that. You don't need laws to save lives, you need common sense.
Want to improve speed limit compliance? Set the speed limit at the 85 percentile and design the road for a specific speed.
Want to reduce collisions at signalized intersections? Increase the time of the yellow light, introduce a 2-second delay where all lights are red, and/or start utilizing roundabouts.
See, I just saved lives without the need for additional laws.
But it’s not an excuse to break the law
I seem to recall that a few Americans were not happy with how the King was ruling the colonies and decided that it was time to 'break the law'.
In Ontario, Canada, it took retailers breaking the law by opening on Sundays and Boxing Day to allow stores to be open on Sundays and certain statutory holidays.
Rosa Parks decided she didn't like being forced to sit at the back of the bus and decided to break the law in order to sit where ever she wanted to.
Plenty of other example where sometimes you have to break the law in order to eliminate or change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not an excuse
I don't think I've seen anyone here (or elsewhere) claim that running red lights is safe, appropriate, or acceptable.
The laws aren’t there to make money, but to save lives.
If the laws are there to save lives (which they should be) and the statistics show that red light cameras only rarely create a slight reduction in crashes, but, in far more cases, correlate with a significant increase in crashes (which appears to be the case), then the laws should clearly be changed to save lives more effectively by removing the cameras.
Now, yes, that will make it easier for people to break the law without getting caught. But which it more important, perfect compliance with the law or preventing crashes and saving lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not an excuse
In the case of red light cameras, the evidence says otherwise.
If politicians are abusing them by getting easy money at the expense of making the roads safer, then that needs to be addressed.
It certainly does. By calling attention to it and creating public discourse about it in an attempt to get the politicians to change their law.
But it’s not an excuse to break the law...
Who (other than your own straw man) said it was?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not an excuse
.51 of a second.
the intersection was so sketchy that the right hand turn lane light remains red the whole time and the only thing that changes is the green and yellow arrow..
the light doesnt even have to change to red because it stays on.
i couldnt even tell that the light had turned red because as soon as the yellow arrow turned off i got bombarded with flashing lights (at night time)..yeah its very safe to blind a whole intersection.
i made it thru the whole turn with out even relizing/ thinking that it was me who got photograped. because the whole thing happend in under 1.5 seconds
i work a minimum wage job, i go to school full time, and i obey the law. yet the government feels that its nessecary to take my whole 2 week paycheck to pay for the whole 1/2 of a second, that i missed that turn.
that justice for..... thumbs down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not an excuse
Now they are rolling this back and putting in cameras to prevent a collection of "offenders" from rolling into the intersection..?
This seems a little backwards. But that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is plenty of long term data:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/stu dies/
Here is an interesting experiment in denmark that plans to eliminate lights all together:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/04/ntraffic04.xml
final ly here is a clip of an intersection in what appears to be India. it looks insane but apparently it works for them. I would like to see a long term study done on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcA5n6_RmUg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anon Costa Rica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few months ago I was driving on the same road when a light about 200 feet in front of me turned red. I slowed down and stopped, but the car in the lane next to me which was behind me when it turned red FLOORED IT and even though he was four or five seconds late he ran the light, actually cutting between two cars turning left off the other street. From where he was he could have slammed on the brakes and stopped in plenty of time, so it wasn't accidental on his part. Probably half the non-highway wrecks I see can be attributed to somebody running a red light. And the lights around here have about a two-second delay, but all that does is embolden the red light runners because they know they have time to get through the intersection before crossing traffic starts moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb People
Heres a tip people THINK... I know that there are people out there that agree with me... And those that don't just want to make excuses so they dont have to feel guilty any more for running that red light every once and a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb People
Ill break it down and use small words so even you can understand:
1. They make a law to protect public safety: (don't enter an intersection if the light it red)
2. They find that if they make yellow lights longer fewer people have accidents:
3. They put cameras on the lights to catch bad people.
4. They make money buy catching bad people.
5. They find that people are driving in an unsafe manner because the cameras are there.
6. They have a decision to make now. Do they keep the cameras, catch bad people and make money or do they remove them to protect public safety?
Too often they choose to make money and the price is safety. This directly counters the intent of the law in the first place. Many municipalities compound this by tinkering with the light timing to create more "bad people" and make more money. These are the same jokers that sell the system as a safety feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb People
That wasn't even the real reason to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
follow thee money
Oh and I did receive a ticket from a red light camera after my brother bought my truck. Even with proof of the purchase date falling before the ticket date, i was still forced to pay for the ticket or i was told i could face jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most drivers? Care to back up that statement with some stats?
Drivers need to be trained, or retrained, to drive the speed limit
And governments need to be retrained to start designing roads properly and start using the 85th percentile to determine the appropriate speed limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Dumb People by Liquid
I am not sure about every state, but I have never heard of a case where the person who gets rear-ended is assigned fault for the accident... it is assumed the person behind was tailgating because if they weren't then they would have had enough time & distance to stop, even if the front car stopped short at the yellow. Not to mention the physical injuries you just wished upon people who are just afraid of getting a $75 slap in the face (in the mail two weeks later no less!).
The point is, they are installing heartless, thoughtless machines on every intersection which give the majority of the money to a privately owned corporation and the remaining few percent going (at least in Dallas)... wait for it... "to further traffic enforcement activities"!
The cameras do not and cannot evaluate the circumstances of an event. An actual police officer sees the entire event (not just two still frames) and uses his judgement to determine if a ticket should be issued. This is appropriate because encountering a yellow light on approach requires a snap judgement by the driver. There should be SOME leeway for errors in judgement since they can and do occur.
The camera offers NO such leeway. Two stills go to a rubber-stamping "police officer" (read: 1st year desk clerk) who follows the rule "front tire over line = accept, front tire behind line = not accept". There is NO built-in tolerance for a lapse in judgement -- in my case I was, according to the citation, *one tenth of one second* late on the light. I bet if I did that 1,000 times in front of 1,000 police cars I would not receive a *single* citation. Heck, I doubt I'd even get pulled for a warning.
But since we have these fancy cameras, now the city can use "safety" as a cudgel to generate revenue, except most of the revenue doesn't even go to the city, it goes to a corporation probably owned by some golf buddy of the politician who greased the wheels on the deal & made sure the terms were in favor of the corporation.
I am all for public safety; autos should be feared much more than they are and driving is the single most dangerous activity that most of us will do in our lives. However, the concern is a secret tweaking of the system in favor of revenue at the expense of public safety... now THAT'S something deserving of a "butt pounding from behind" as so eloquently stated by Liquid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cover your face
If they DO issue you one, you simply go to court and claim its not you, or that its really questionable as to whether its you.
No one should ever pay one of these rediculous fines. That said, no one should run a red light either.. learn to drive, and have some patience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cover your face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cover your Face by James
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Old Way
These days they just use red light cameras instead. I suppose it's more cost effective than "the old way" but the principle is still the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The other thing, besides longer yellows, that would help is actually timing the damn lights to let cars through, and posting the actual speed you should be going on the road (under the speed limit sign) that you should go to keep hitting greens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beating the camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]