Chicago Tribune Notices More Accidents Happening At Many Intersections With Red Light Cameras
from the and-again dept
Dark Helmet was the first of a few to send in a Chicago Tribune article looking at redlight camera accident rates and seeing (as many other reports have shown before) that in many cases the number of accidents went up. The report looked at fourteen intersections. Seven showed increases in accidents, two stayed the same, and five dropped. Even more interesting: at one of the intersections the number of t-bone "broadside" collisions (the ones that defenders of the cameras insist decrease) went up significantly. That was just one intersection, though. Others saw the more traditional decrease in broadsides, but significant increase in rear-end accidents as drivers slam on their brakes. The other interesting finding from the data: contrary to the claims of camera defenders, over time the rate of accidents did not appear to decrease "as drivers learned about the cameras."Once again, we're left wondering why people still claim the cameras increase safety, when there appears to be no evidence to support that at all. There is a clear and proven way to increase safety though: (1) increase the length of the yellow and (2) increase the delay (or, for places like California which have no delay, put in a delay) when lights in all direction are red, before switching the new direction to green. Any municipality that puts in redlight cameras without doing those two things above, and then claims its about "safety" is lying. Bizarrely, though, the supporters in the Chicago area are still defending their system:
Even if not reflected in accident statistics, Belwood Police Chief Robert Collins Jr. said he sees drivers being more cautious as they approach stoplights. "Driver behavior has definitely changed," Collins said...Changed for the worse, apparently. Are we to believe the police chief's anecdotal insistence or what the stats actually say?
Roger Pawlowski, a division chief at the Oak Lawn Police Department, said the benefits of red-light cameras can't always be extrapolated from crash statistics.Ah, then what are we to extrapolate the benefits of redlight cameras from? Checks cashed by the city?
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: accidents, chicago, redlight cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hard to seperate out data
How many snow or rain days in each year? How is the overall traffic flow? Are more cars using these intersections? Can the increase in accidents be attributed to people stopping to avoid running a red light and getting hit from behind by other cars? Has the location of the accidents changed? Was anything else changed at these intersections, such as decreasing light times, adding or removing turning arrows, etc? It can take time for the drivers to adjust to new configurations or expectations.
While going from 34 to 44 accidents (one example) appears to be a bad thing, unless you can qualify the accidents and show what is actually causing them, there is potentially no connection to red light cameras in either manner.
Also, there is no indication as to the number of people running the lights. What was it before, what is it now?
Incomplete data means that it is all speculation, not based on fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to seperate out data
And the same can be said about the pre-camera statistics. Where there things going on at those intersections which increased the risk of accident. Like rain, or construction, or people standing in the middle of the street dressed like a troll. If there was an elevation prior to the installation, then that would only further prove the growing trend that camera cause additional accidents.
I suspect there is an equal level of probability that the risks were elevate above normal levels due to external events prior to the camera installation as there was after the installation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hard to seperate out data
You are right, there are risks that were there before and after. An increase in 10 accidents in a year (less than 1 per month average over the time period) is likely within the risk windows for this situation. Without knowing if other things have increased (is traffic up 25%?) the numbers are nice but without true meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to seperate out data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hard to seperate out data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hard to seperate out data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to seperate out data
While I actually agree with you, it works both ways of course. This is why in my story submission, I broke down for Mike why one of the intersections I'm very familiar with actually should have seen a decrease in accidents due to decrease in traffic for a very specific reason.
Wish I had retained a copy of the submission so I could repost. Mike, feel free to do so on your own if you wish, or post it in the comments....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to seperate out data
Incomplete data means that it is all speculation, not based on fact.
No, incomplete data means incomplete data. Speculation means speculation. They are not the same thing, and data are almost always incomplete.
What's going on here is Chicago law enforcement said, "these things are for safety." The data show at best a mixed picture of the safety record. The best they can come up with in response is "no really, it's safer despite what the data say, trust us." Instead, if they can "complete" the data, showing confounding factors as you suggest, then that could support their position. As it is, they have failed to show an improvement in safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hard to seperate out data
Thank you captain obvious. My point is this: With data sets that are so incomplete, attempting to draw any conclusion in either direction is entirely speculation.
It isn't just a question of filling in or completing the data for a single year, because the sample size may not be large enough to make any increase or decrease meaningful. As a result, it is very difficult to show any improvement in safety, at least in the short run.
It would certain be interesting to see the differences in the types of accidents and numbers of injuries, to see what is going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hard to seperate out data
Additional data points are always welcome, however - since there is never enough data to draw a 100% correct conclusion, TAM suggests that we should not even bother looking at the data because it is meaningless.
Nice - TAM must be one of those MBA types with pointy hair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to seperate out data
This is in fact one of the popular theories on why the number of accidents at intersections with red light cameras actually increases instead of decreases.
And on a related note, I think there's actually a connection with another popular TechDirt topic: illegal downloading of copyrighted songs. See, with illegal downloads, the recording industry is getting too hung up on the legal and ethical issues of people downloading songs when they don't have permission. They've lost sight of the real goal, to make money. Similarly, (some) proponants of red light cameras are getting too hung up on punishing the red light runners. They've lost sight of the real goal, making intersections safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to seperate out data
I hate the red light cameras as much as the next guy, but I would agree that in a city like Chicago, seeing an additional 10 accidents in a year doesn't really mean much; watching those numbers in the coming years (and comparing them to the past handful of years) would be much more interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red light cameras
Have you looked at the severity of the accidents occuring? Nope. Many safety treatments 'swap' deadly accidents (T-bone) for less severy property damage ones (rear-end).
While red-light cameras are never popular with the public, they do save lives. Same as seat belts and motorcycle helmets - both are the things that have been shunned in the US due to public back-clash. At the end of the day it's your lives people. I'd rather comply witht the law and stay alive.
Ponder on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red light cameras
Citation needed.
Same as seat belts and motorcycle helmets - both are the things that have been shunned in the US due to public back-clash.
I think you've misundestood the objections to red light cameras. Unlike red light cameras, most people who don't want to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets would admit that they increase safety. They may just think that they're inconvenient/uncomfortable or they may not like the government forcing them to do something that only affects their safety, not the safety of others. But with the issue of red light cameras, there is serious doubt on 1) whether they actually do increase overall safety and 2) whether there isn't a much simpler, albeit less income generating solution.
It'd be like if the government skipped the step of citing you if they happen to see you're not wearing a seatbelt and went right for putting Big Brother type cameras in every car on the road to ensure people were wearing their seatbelts. Because, "it's your lives people" after, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red light cameras
Hulser wrote:
Chris already explained why this is so: because it replaces more deadly side-on collisions with less serious rear-end collisions.
Which is the point that no-one else in this discussion seems to get: it’s not about reducing the number of accidents, but about reducing their severity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red light cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red light cameras
As ac pointed out above, providing an explanation, albeit one that is logical, is quite different from actually providing a citation of evidence. Chris didn't say "I believe red light cameras save lives because they trade fewer more-severe accidents for more less-severe accidents." He made a difinitive statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red light cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red light cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red light cameras
How many shares in Redflex Traffic Systems do you own ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red light cameras
There have been some studies done like that, and we've pointed to them.
The sample of sites looked at (14) is just too small to show any significance in this case. What was the period you looked at? You need several years at least - accident statistics vary enormously from year to year due to random effects.
It did look at several years.
Have you looked at the severity of the accidents occuring? Nope. Many safety treatments 'swap' deadly accidents (T-bone) for less severy property damage ones (rear-end).
Did you even read the article, or the post? We discussed how some of the lights actually showed an INCREASE in t-bone accidents.
While red-light cameras are never popular with the public, they do save lives.
Proof please?
The point we've raised is that there doesn't appear to be much, if any, evidence to support that. There is, however, significant evidence of other ways to save lives (increasing length of yellow light, increasing time of all-way red).
Ponder on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red light cameras
Melrose Park installed two cameras on North Avenue in November 2007, and accidents afterward jumped at both. But there may be a more nuanced view to the safety impact of the device installed outside Kiddieland.
Total crashes rose, largely because of a big jump in rear-end collisions -- an effect often seen when drivers suddenly slam on brakes at camera-monitored intersections to avoid tickets. But broadside collisions fell from five in 2006 to one in 2008.
The best safety results were logged at 87th Street and Cicero Avenue in Hometown, where cameras went up in September 2007. Total accidents fell from 45 in 2006 to 27 in 2008, with broadsides dropping from four to one.
Police Chief Charles Forsyth said preliminary data indicate 2009 numbers will be even better. "People that don't get the violations love it," Forsyth said. "We're very happy."
This seems to indicate both a signficiant decrease is broadside accidents, and seems to move the accidents that are happening into the rear end style accidents as people brake to avoid running the light. It would seem that the cameras in these cases are doing exactly as intended.
Why focus only on the negative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can
That the cameras see MORE accidents that are NOT reported.
Hulser has a good thought.
Another is that Red light camers only CUT DOWN on the personnel needed to give tickets, but does it SAVE money?
Using OUTSIDE companies to do the service Probably dont save much. HIRING inside help to go thru pictures all day would PROBABLY save money. HIRE a couple rookies..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can
That the cameras see MORE accidents that are NOT reported."
I don't believe that follows. Red Light cameras are supposed to be used only to issue tickets for those that go through the intersection when the light is red, not to report any additional accidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can
I don't see how your logic on how they cut down to save money on personnel on the street, as most of the town in Chicago have kept the same force on the street after putting the cameras up as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stoplight Timing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stoplight Timing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stoplight Timing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stoplight Timing
Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but it appears to be equally as valid as the evidence put forward by the supporters of red light cameras. I would have liked to see a detailed study before all these cities started installing red light cameras. But instead, I think the cities saw the perception of safety and dollar signs, and that was all the convincing they needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stoplight Timing
Will there be people that will drive faster? Yes. But they are the minority, and no amount of law enforcement will change their behaviour. The same applies to red light runners. If red light cameras are so bullet proof, why do people still get tickets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Im not bringing it up as tin foil hat thought, but just like databases, if you have it out there "they"(in what ever manner you choose, Government, big Pharma, Big tobacco, what ever) will abuse it, so why give to them at all...
Just keep trading you freedom for that safety, and soon you will be the safest slave amongst many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know my results are not conclusive as of yet, but it is showing far better results then any of the red light cameras, considering this is a busier intersection then IL-72 and IL-31. This intersection is a 2 miles east of Randall, and happens to have the same numbers so far this year as it did last year without the red light camera...
No wonder why IDOT doesn't want to put many more up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haven't you heard? I'm actually Mike Masnick, so the only two places I know are Staten Island and some place in California.
Back to reality. I'm only vaguely familiar with that intersection, though it is near where Mama and Papa Helmet live. The one from the story I'm VERY familiar with is the one on North Ave. in Melrose Park. Up until last year there used to be a relatively popular children's amusement park there called Santa's Village. It closed in what seems like the middle of time during which these metrics were taken.
You'd expect to see a decline in all accidents to coincide with the resulting decline in traffic. However, they went up across the board...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dammit, you're right. I have always gotten those two mixed up, ever since I was a kid. That's why I wanted M&M to repost what I sent him, because I specifically looked it up to make sure I had the name right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heh. To clarify, I believe I've driven through Staten Island about 3 times in my life (maybe 4), but otherwise, I've never been. Well, one time, I took the Staten Island ferry, but I never left the boat when we got to the Staten Island side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's certainly not everywhere in California...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red light cameras
Why cant we do both? It seems very stupid to trade one crash for another - regardless of the severity. Assuming red light cameras actually DO reduce the number of side-impact collisions, the fact that the number of rear impact collisions increases with them should prove that they are ineffectual and should be dropped for a better solution - such as what was pointed out earlier - increase the duration of the yellow lights and the all-red lights.
e.g. I don't like getting punched in the face, sure a punch in the arm is better - but i'd rather not be punched so find a better solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red light cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do the drivers know to change ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do the drivers know to change ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Ticketing Cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Ticketing Cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Ticketing Cameras
Another factor to consider is that although rear-end accident are usually less severe than t-bones, this is transferring the accidents from those who are running the lights to those who are attempting to comply with the law. How can this be seen as right in any way?
Get rid of the cameras, increase the length of yellow lights and add/increase delays before green. Let the city/county figure out a way to generate more revenue in a way that doesn't screw those of us trying our best to do the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Cameras in Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red Light Cameras in Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While living in a metro-area suburb i had the misfortune to be involved in two separate fender-bender/rear end accidents and both at intersections. No, they were not my fault.
Both us drivers pulled aside, of course. emergency blinkers and the like. In the first occasion there was no police response and in the second an officer slowed down Just long enough to ask if anyone was hurt or if we required help.
Since no one was hurt, it turns out that there was next to no police reporting. It required a huge runaround with insurance companies to get anyone from the police to admit that there was an accident, since there was no trail of paperwork or Blood to splash all over.
Short version- Numbers can be skewed by under-reporting/omission of these "unimportant" crashes, despite their huge impact on safety and property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]