Another Report Shows Redlight Cameras Increasing Accidents
from the but-they-make-the-city-money dept
weneedhelp points us to yet another report suggesting that red light cameras quite frequently appear to increase the number of car accidents, even as they're pitched to the public as a way to decrease accidents. In this case, police data from Philly showed that aggregate accidents apparently increased 12% at the locations where cameras have been installed for at least a year. What's odd, however, is that the local Parking Authority, who runs the red light camera program, insists that the police data is inaccurate, and that its own data shows a decrease in accidents. Of course, it's not clear why or how the Parking Authority would have crash data. The police seem much more likely to have such data, so it seems like that's a lot more trustworthy. As we've noted in the past, if municipalities really wanted to decrease accidents, they'd do two things: (1) increase the length of yellow lights and (2) add a delay after lights in one direction turn red before the lights in the other direction turn green (and, yes, many places do this already -- but lots of them do not, including most lights near where I live).Of course, it's not difficult to see that local governments have no desire to actually stop violations at all, because things like red light cameras have never been about safety on the roads, and have always been about money:
Motorists have paid $45.3 million in fines since 2005, of which $21.1 million has gone to PennDot.Apparently, the amount being made today absolutely dwarfs what was made in tickets before the cameras were installed. And, so, rather than actually making the roads safer, they're being made less safe in order to beef up government revenue.
The rest of the money - $24.2 million - has gone to pay the expenses for operating the program, mainly to American Traffic Solutions Inc., the Scottsdale, Ariz., company that installs and maintains the cameras, and to the Parking Authority.
PennDot distributes its revenue from the camera program for transportation projects: half to Philadelphia and half to the rest of the state.
So far, Philadelphia has received $8.4 million; another $8.4 million has gone to 116 other municipalities in the state. Philadelphia is to get $1.5 million more, and a like amount will go to the rest of the state.
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, redlight cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Where does it end? Should we just turn Techdirt into Criminaldirt? Are you going to get those posts on murder finished by the end of the month?
GOSH MIKE YOU'RE MAKING IT EASIER AND EASIER TO HATE YOU FOR MY JOB EACH AND EVERY DAY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Job, you say?
Thank you for confirming one of my long held suspicions concerning paid shills on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Job, you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Job, you say?
Don't bet on it. Tons of people fell for my trolling yesterday, even though some of it was pretty obvious. One guy was still posting today about how I needed to answer him or I would suffer. I think I was supposed be darned to Heck for a little while for all of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example, is there a decrease in side impact crashes (the type most often attributed to red light running), while an increase is attributed to "2nd car trying to run the light" and running into the first car which stopped? Over time, as people get more use to the car in front stopping, would that number of accidents decrease?
Also, what is the severity of the accidents involved? If we have moved up to more fender benders, and lost some of the more significant hits, are we safer?
With a lack of quantifiable data, it is incredibly hard to draw any conclusions. You cannot even conclude that red light cameras had anything to do with it one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hows that for a start?
http://georgia-speeding-ticket-blog.c om/2009/04/27/future-not-so-bright-for-georgia-red-light-cameras/
http://www.thenewspaper.com/new s/27/2713.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue isn't the length of a yellow light as much as the public's perception that they can go through on a yellow. The choice to hit the gas instead of the brake is the real problem. Adjusting the length of a yellow is only giving into the public's self defeating actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Every long term study done proves your wrong.
"ITE began to change the timing formula so that it would consistently produce shorter yellows. As data from Fairfax County, Virginia show, the benefit of reversing these changes and lengthening yellows does not diminish over time."
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport5.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get that, If i were you I would feel the same way. But if your truly interested, do some research. I've read several studies on both sides, and in my honest opinion, the cameras are just not worth the risk to public safety. Now... more cops on the streets would be another matter altogether....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks AJ for your citations and sound reasoning, refreshing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yellow Length
As you might imagine, stopping distance is quite different for an 80,000 lb. vehicle than for a 4,000 lb. car. Over the last few years, it has become a lot more difficult to judge whether to stop, or keep going, when a yellow comes on. This is because many municipalities have shortened yellows, so I no longer have a feel for how long they should last. Trucks have a 'point of no return', where there is no longer enough distance to stop. Very often, I now find myself going through a red, even though there was no way for me to stop when the yellow hit. As a result, I often jam on the brakes soon as I see yellow. This too is dangerous, as I cannot see any cars behind me. Especially if they're following close.
Traffic light length should be determined based on traffic engineering principles, rather than how much revenue can be generated. Shortened yellows are especially dangerous on roads with truck traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if municipalities really wanted to decrease accidents, they'd do two things: (1) increase the length of yellow lights and (2) add a delay after lights in one direction turn red before the lights in the other direction turn green
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When we implement a new law or traffic pattern, especially one that involves the quick change of kinetic energy of a 2000 lb vehicle, without any sort of driver training...well, yes you're going to get more accidents.
Sadly, the initial roll outs of red light cameras had all of the (very justifiably wrong) monetary issues that soured everybody on them.
You had the contractor servicing the cameras getting a piece of the ticket in some cases. You have the same incentive for local governments at a time of massive cut backs in state/fed revenue to find new revenue sources.
Those issues definitely soured people on the technology above and beyond actually getting a ticket. But they are also simply implementation details and not any flaw of the technology itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't almost all the camera tickets still go through some company in AZ? Specifically these guys http://www.redflex.com/
Who actually have redlight camers all of the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stats...
In one paragraph, they talk about the 2 years before and 2 years after a traffic camera was installed in 2005. In the next paragraph, they talk about the 3 years before and 3 years after a different traffic camera was installed in 2007. This is classic data cherry-picking since they clearly have data from 2003 (or earlier) all the way thru 2010.
In fact, if you get thru the article, you'll find that the more recent study that looked at more cameras found mixed results (some intersections had improved, other intersections have gotten worse).
Keep in mind that a large federal study years ago found that traffic light cameras were pretty much a wash for safety. Side impacts down, but rear ends made up the difference.
The 2 points brought up in the original post remain the most effective way to increase safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third thing:
When the light turns yellow there's a brief moment of "do I have enough time to clear, or should I brake". If you're a new driver (and sometimes an older one) this can be slightly panic-inducing - you're forced to make a split-second decision immediately. If you guess wrong, you can cause a collision.
At a number of intersections, my city has installed countdown timers on green lights. They were installed for pedestrians, but drivers use them too - they tell you exactly how many seconds you have before the light changes. You thus have lots of time to gauge traffic and slow down safely if the light will be yellow when you get there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The Parking Authority's own analysis last month of recent crashes at three red-light-camera intersections on Roosevelt Boulevard found accidents down by 8.5 percent with injury accidents up by 8 percent."
Less accidents, more injuries! Yay cameras?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, that's parasailing preposterously over my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess what happened next? The cities started taking down the cameras. Even our politicians were admitting it was all about the money.
"The legislation, sponsored by Loudermilk, was part of a broader attempt to curtail use of the cameras.
“The problem is, for many cities, it’s about the money,” he said."
Never about money? Bullshit!
(Caution PDF)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/ga-hb77.pdf
http://georgia-speeding-ticket-blog.c om/2009/04/27/future-not-so-bright-for-georgia-red-light-cameras/
http://www.thenewspaper.com/new s/27/2713.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
Well, if I wished to improve society -- and frankly I see no evidence that Mike does; he wants (someone else) to work up some schemes for better grifting using the internet, but is silent not only on IMPROVEMENTS but on how to fight the power -- then I'd ... oh, wait: I'm not giving MIke benefit of my knowledge FOR FREE. My only public service here is to illustrate that he's at best a shallow guru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
Hmmmm, its not irony.....whats the word for hilariously self-referential?
--------------
Not contradictory, though. I'm not trying to /add/ value to the site. Presumably you are.
So, recursively, do you see how YOUR comment ADDS NOTHING?
Pick a fixed handle and STATE something that can be picked at, smartass. See how you fare at anything but empty snark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
Says the king of empty snark.
-----------------------
I don't accept such title any more than George Washington did.
But I'd agree that you're a peasant in comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
Blue sometimes I log in and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I post something thoughtful, sometimes something fun, sometimes something snarky or sarcastic. All you post semi-on-topic rants trying to draw some fault out of the article. Usually these posts are full of misinformation which you will vehemently defend no matter how much counter evidence you are presented. Most of the time you have no clue about what you are speaking but god damn if you don't have a strong opinion.
Not only are your posts counter productive with how off topic and full of willful ignorance they are you also insist on butchering the English language and grammar to prove your point. If you have to highlight the important words to make your point then you have already failed. Write a clear on concise argument and you don't have to caps or slash the words you find important. Do the books you read do this? Are they primers for fourth graders? Sometimes authors will use this to reflect a character using emphasis on a word while speaking. Read some of your posts and out loud and over emphasis the words you highlight and maybe you will start to see why most people take you for a moron at first glance.
Really what the fuck is with the /word/? Is that suppose to be like "word"?
"I'm not trying to /add/ value to the site" What are you trying to add the word add in this case? What is the point of this other than making you look like a fool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
You're a troubled young man I can tell
You've got it all in the palm of your hand
But your hand's wet with sweat and your head needs a rest
And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
Styx
Fooling Yourself (Palm of Your Hands)
You see the world through your cynical eyes
You're a troubled young man I can tell
You got it all in the palm of your hand
But your hand's wet with sweat
And your head needs a rest
You're fooling yourself
If you don't believe it
You're killing yourself
If you don't believe it
Greatest Hits (1995)
You see the world through your cynical eyes
You're a troubled young man I can tell
You've got it all in the palm of your hand
But your hand's wet with sweat and your head needs a rest
And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it
How can you be such an angry young man
When your future looks quite bright to me
How can there be such a sinister plan
That could hide such a lamb, such a caring young man
You're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're kidding yourself if you don't believe it
Get up, get back on your feet
You're the one they can't beat and you know it
Come on, let's see what you've got
Just take your best shot and don't blow it
You're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're killing yourself if you don't believe it
Get up, get back on your feet
You're the one they can't beat and you know it
Come on, let's see what you've got
Just take your best shot and don't blow it.
The Angry Young Man)
You see the world through your cynical eyes
You're a troubled young man I can tell
You've got it all in the palm of your hand
But your hand's wet with sweat
And your head needs a rest
And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
Why must you be such an angry young man
When your future looks quite bright to me
And how can there be such a sinister plan
That could hide such a lamb
Such a caring young man
And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're killing yourself if you don't believe it
Get up, get back on your feet
You're the one they can't beat and you know it
Come on let's see what you've got
Just take your best shot and don't blow it.
Lyrics by: Tommy Shaw
Music by: Tommy Shaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
> this just filler? Am I (turning into)
> just another lame hack?
Who's the bigger loser-- the guy who spends his time writing a 'lame' blog, or the guy who spends his time writing comments about that lame blog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
It's just a little thread about the ongoing story and continuing discussion regarding the introduction and usage and statistics of red light cameras and their handlers.
The number if pissants around here that directly target the folks providing interesting bits about our present realities, typically with ties to technology, is an infestation, a scourge.
If you disagree either say so or move on. Stop blowing your loads in their eyes. Or frigging publish your own blog regarding your own interests and start your own damn ant hill.
STOP AND THINK - err.. put up or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any time you start by writing "yet another report", STOP AND THINK.
What value is it adding to the site? Is this just filler?...
I get it. Awww so cute. You have a crush on Mike, and like the little boy that pulls a little girls pigtails, you love to come here and try to get his attention while entertaining us everyday... FOR FREE. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, other than the electric costs, and occasionally sending someone out to repair a broken camera, what operating expenses are there? Just one guy ought to be able to look at all the pictures a couple dozen of traffic cameras take and write down the license plates of the violators. Plus there's even computer technology to do that job for just the cost of the software (though the technology isn't 100% accurate yet, and would need a human to review it, but that still ought to be even faster than a human jotting the plate numbers down).
Does it really cost over 50% of the ticket price to have a guy write down the license plate, have another guy look up the person's address based on their plate number, and send the ticket through the mail?
At the slowest I'd estimate it should take 10 minutes for 1 guy to do all those steps, so 6 tickets an hour, 8 hours of working in a day, 5 workdays a week, that means one guy could send a minimum of 240 tickets in a week. Lets assume each ticket is for $100. That means the state is spending over $12,000 per employee to operate red light cameras. If that 24 million operating expense included the cost of installing all the red light cameras then these numbers would look a lot more reasonable, but there's no mention of the costs of installing them in that number, so I assume it's not a part of the $24 million.
The real problem here is almost certainly not an outrageously high salary for the employees, or really slow inefficient employees. It's how most governments hire a private contractor to install and operate these red light cameras, and those contractors demand an outrageously high cut of every ticket the red light cameras give. It shouldn't even be legal for a contractor to demand X% of all ticket revenue for all the red light cameras they install, since that money should belong to the tax payers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lights & lines
It's one of those particularly sucky towns actually. Anyway, the point is that those lane lines should meet or beat the length of a yellow light which corresponds to the speed of a vehicle traveling at the posted speed limit for the intersection. With the exception being lack of a line of course. This provides the driver, any driver, all drivers with the proper information so that they can make an informed and safe decision regarding the operation of their vehicle while traveling within the posted limits.
Make or brake - should not be an exercise left to chance.
Any line length (or other similar measure that relays the same information) less than that is increasing the danger of that intersection. Surprises are not helpful.
Thieving cameras - cameras are thieving, putting safety one notch below where it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caught by the Philly cam
(Background: it was raining, light turned yellow - I thought it a bad idea to jam on the breaks)
So I get the violation in the mail. It shows a picture of my vehicle (my wife's minivan which is big, heavy and doesn't stop on a dime) nose at the white line at the moment of RED.
Here's where it gets crooked(er). The notice of violation tells you that if you pay the fine now, its only $100 and no points. OR. You can request a hearing.
Hearing requested! Take time off of work - yay!
Fair hearing it isn't. You sit in a room with a Philadelphia Parking Authority employee - yeah, the same people who manage the program and collect a portion of the revenue. Hmm. Seems impartial.
Ruling: The light is red, your car is behind the line. Violation upheld. You can appeal.
Appeal! (out of principal)
Oh, only catch, you have to pay $35 to appeal. Yeah, $35 to appeal a $100 fine. I wonder how many people bother to take ANOTHER day off work and risk paying $135 vs "winning" and saving $65.
And of course, at the appeal, the real "judge" has no interest in hearing any logical arguments, takes 18 seconds to declare the violation upheld. In his defense, at least he has plenty of other traffic cases to deal with besides some guy bitching about a red light camera.
I could appeal again, but at what cost. Time to give up and pay.
Scam. Scam. Scam. I used to love Philly. Born and raised there. Now I hate it and hope the corrupt local government brings the whole town to its knees. They deserve it for re-electing the same crooks year after year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caught by the Philly cam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traffic Cams. a govt contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walk Signal Timers are better than long yellows or long reds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beat red light cameras!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]