Red Light Cameras On The Decline, As Everyone Realizes They Don't Make Roads Safer, They Just Make Money
from the good-riddance dept
For many years we've written about the problems of red light cameras. Installed over the past few years in many cities, the public statements supporting them were always about increased safety on our roads. However, as we've noted, plenty of studies showed that the cameras actually tended to increase accidents, showed little to no safety benefit, and were almost always driven by monetary incentives. Because of this, there were numerous reports of various municipalities actually deciding to decrease the time on yellow lights, thereby getting more money from tickets, but massively increasing the safety risk. Multiple studies have shown that the one way to make intersections safer is to increase the yellow light time -- but in order to make more money, many were decreasing it (often below legal limits).The anger over these tactics has been increasing quite a bit over the past few years and a variety of cities decided to cancel their programs, causing the leading company providing these systems (who takes a large cut of every ticket), Redflex, to face some financial difficulties.
It appears that the trends are definitely against red light cameras. Cyrus Farivar has a great article (though, annoyingly paginated) about the decline in red light cameras, noting that 2013 was the first year where more red light camera systems were turned off than turned on.
Redflex's US operations took a hit in 2013 as the company installed 54 new systems—but removed 101. Redflex’s recent fiscal report (PDF) shows that its after-tax net profits in a six-month period have dropped by half: plummeting from $7.1 million in the first half of 2012 to $3.6 million in the first six months of 2013.Meanwhile, the article also takes on the various "competing studies" concerning red light cameras, and pointing to one study that compared a whole bunch of the studies, evaluated their methodologies, and found that the ones that showed benefits to red light cameras, almost invariably had dreadful methodologies that didn't take into account the basic variability in accidents at any given intersection, and the likelihood of a return to the mean (in short: intersections with an abnormally large number of accidents frequently see that amount go down the following year -- and red light camera makers and the studies supporting them rarely took into account that variability, but assigned such a decrease to the cameras). When correcting for such problems, the study of studies found the data showed that red light cameras are a problem, not a solution:
The meta-analysis concluded that, when only the best studies were considered, "The results of the meta-analysis are rather unfavorable for RLCs... According to the results from these studies, right-angle collisions are reduced by about 10 percent, rear-end collisions increase significantly by about 40 percent, and the overall effect on all types of crashes is an increase by about 15 percent. Only studies with weaker study designs yield results that are more favorable for RLCs."The study which those researches said had the best methodology also found significant negative impact overall:
the increase in costs from the increase in rear-end crashes more than offset the reduction in costs from the decrease in red light running crashes.Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end for red light cameras. We're all for making intersections safer, but the way to do that is to increase the time on yellow lights -- and for places that still don't have this: have a brief interval where lights in both directions are red, rather than switching simultaneously to red in one direction and green in the other. And yes, every time I make that last point, people who don't live in places where that's the case marvel that any place in the world has this, but it's true in many, many places. Switching that to having an interval with both directions red, plus a longer yellow light, will actually make people safer, and yet... it doesn't make any more money, so very few have been willing to make this simple switch.
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
Companies: redflex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe fines should be used at all, at least in the way they are in the US. The way fines are used in the US they are simply a way to let those with more money be punished less painfully than those with less. It would be fairer to just use jail time for everyone, regardless of wealth.
Having said that, I've been told that in some other countries fines are based on a percentage of annual income. That would at least be a big improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using a percent of annual income sounds good, but is totally inefficient. What, they are going to look at my tax return?
Fines are the best way to curb bad behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't pay the fine and you'll end up in jail. Actually, you can request jail time from the judge in lieu of payment anyway, but it likely won't be a single day in jail. Usually it is quite a bit longer. And you usually don't have a choice of serving your time on your day off.
And might I suggest, if there is one place in the world you don't want to go, it is jail (prison is worse, but jail can be a very eye-opening experience.) I've been there quite a few times as a guest, and I'd never want to be a resident.
A much better solution would be probation. Not a perfect solution, but far better than the slammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I guess that you're unaware that if you're in a "precarious financial situation" and unable to pay your fine you go to jail, huh? Whereas if you've got the bucks, you needn't be so inconvenienced.
Talk about regressive.
"Fines are the best way to curb bad behaviour."
Yeah, especially if you've money. I mean, what's the point in having money if you can't buy you way out, huh?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the way it is where I live, for fines resulting from civil infractions (parking tickets, etc.) Although there is a threshold at which avoiding paying tickets becomes a jailable offense, that threshold is rather high -- you have to rack up many individual tickets and refuse to pay them.
Otherwise, if you get a fine and don't pay it by the deadline, it just gets shipped off to a collection agency like any other debt.
In my opinion, this seems proper and correct. Being sent to a collection agency is no picnic, and ultimately they can garnish wages, assets, etc., to recover the money (in addition to trashing your credit rating). This seems like punishment proportional to the crime to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"and ultimately they can garnish wages, assets, etc."
Which kinda misses the point. If the laws (or fines) themselves are unreasonable and overreaching then paying a fine encourages more bad laws in opposed to discouraging them. If the laws are bad enough for enough people to be willing to go to jail instead of paying the fine then this will encourage politicians to reconsider the laws (or fines) and make them more reasonable. Otherwise most people will just pay the fines (or get their wages garnished or whatever) instead of going to jail. I am only saying that we should have an additional choice and the person faced with the fine can then decide what to do. What's wrong with more choices?
"This seems like punishment proportional to the crime to me."
This statement assumes the government has passed a reasonable law for the right reasons. If the laws (and penalties) are reasonable most people will simply pay the fine (or serve community service or whatever) and the system is self sustaining. If the laws are not reasonable and enough people disbelieve in them then the system is not self sustaining (more people will rather serve than pay the fine) and so politicians must rethink the laws and penalties.
To "streetlight"
"unpaid community service"
Perhaps that should also be an option to those that can't pay the fine but believe what they did was wrong. But those that refuse to pay the fine because they think the fine is unreasonable or they believe the law is wrong should have the option of serving jail time instead. No one should be forced to support laws they don't believe in. If enough people don't believe in these laws jail could be seen as a form of protesting which would force politicians to reconsider the laws.
To yankinwaoz
"A much better solution would be probation."
This is an interesting proposal. On the plus side probation isn't as bad as jail. On the negative side probation doesn't tax the system very much and so there maybe a lot of incentive for government to impose excessive probation periods to encourage people who don't believe in certain laws to just pay the fine anyways (since the government isn't bearing a huge burden and the rewards against those that will just pay the fines exceed the minor burdens that the government incurs against those that serve probation). Perhaps the option of either probation or a shorter jail period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tell that to a probation officer. I suspect if infractions resulted in fine or probation, and most folks took probation, probation workers would quickly grind the system to a halt and demand shorter probations and/or less restrictions on probationers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alternatively you could also have a more expensive system where each room has several cameras at several different angles during a test and the teacher can review the footage. But such costs aren't generally necessary for average students because a repeat cheater will eventually get caught at least once (which is all that's needed) and so many schools don't (yet) have cameras everywhere during a test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It should not be used to pay for salaries or equipment given to the ones issuing the citations. The incentive to give a citation should be to make the roads safer not to get a new patrol car.
The money should only be used to help stop the problems that caused the citation.
Driver education, road signs, better traffic lights, road markings etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go The Aussies!
Yay us. The all red works! Particularly on Sat nights with the drunks.... everyone stopped and through they go.
Seems we are getting more red light cameras anyway - though ours do speeders as well at the same time.
Still reckon they are better putting the money in driver-ed and better, safer road designs - I seem to spend more time watching my speedo than the road... even with cruise on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go The Aussies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go The Aussies!
If the cameras caught everything after 1 second, very few tickets would have been generated and the folks like this would have gotten their due. The problem was that nearly 80% of the tickets generated were for folks who went through the light 1 second after it turned red, and 38% of them were before 0.25 seconds (note, it usually takes the red light about 0.1-0.2 seconds to reach full brightness.)
Then again, if they only caught a few violators, the cameras wouldn't be worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go The Aussies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government and Fines
In order for them to be effective, fines need to scaled to the persons income. Otherwise that law becomes more a mechanism of Privilege than deterrent. Then it leads to a bureaucratic mentality that begins to fine and outlaw every damn thing they can to generate revenue or to toss malcontents into jail for convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government and Fines
The solution to big government is not bigger government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government and Fines
Cops don't set or collect fines, so why would they need to know your income?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Government and Fines
I don't know if ChrisB is an idiot in real life, or if he just plays one on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government and Fines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government and Fines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/rhetoric
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Safety
The real reason for the cameras is revenue illegally obtained because often the ticket is issued to the owner not who was actually operating the vehicle. Vehicles do not commit traffic violations; people do. So ticketing owners without proof they were operating the vehicle is a violation of their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Real Safety
There was something in the air yesterday -- in addition to that incident, I witness two instances of people driving in the bike lane for over a half mile and one instance of someone driving on the sidewalk. People lose their minds in holiday traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light interval in Both Directions
In my town this is implemented with about a two-second timing. The problem is that everyone knows this and many drivers run the red because they know those stopped at the red will not see green for at least two-seconds. Basically this interval has become an extended yellow. Also, in the downtown area on a very high traffic street the city put in its only RLC. It lasted about a year and was removed because of the incredible increase in rear-end collisions at that one intersection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/chicago-speed-cameras_n_3744743.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An example of a stupid business decision
But instead they put revenue as the #1 goal, and actually performing the service promised at #2. Now they are just making a handful of millions, their revenue is shrinking, and there is an excellent statistical case that they been killing people.
If I was an investor, I would be calling for the heads of their executive staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An example of a stupid business decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make safer intersections!
If public safety is the justification for the cameras, then a better solution would be roundabouts. Collisions in roundabouts are usually side-to-side, not T-Bones. You can even engineer a roundabout with a light. Roundabouts are also much more efficient and less polluting too.
But most drivers in the US are too stupid to use them. In my hometown (Santa Barbara) they installed a large roundabout (Large for California) at a 5-way intersection (Milpas, Hwy 101 ramps, and Carp. St. I've driven all over the world. Not a problem. But that intersection scares the hell out of me. People either come to a screeching halt and freeze with paralysis. Or they just blow through it not yielding to anything. Except for me, I've never seen anyone signal going out, which I think is a nice courtesy to others.
If you want a good laugh: In Long Beach on Highway 1 there is a large roundabout (The Los Alamitos Circle). Stand there and watch the cars navigate it. You will either want to weep in shame, or laugh. or shoot all of the other drivers. I really wish the DMV would recall all Cal. driver's licenses and only reissue after you learned how to safely transverse a traffic circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make safer intersections!
But I won't inflict my confusion on others. I'll drive miles out of my way if it lets me avoid a multi-lane traffic circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make safer intersections!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make safer intersections!
Maybe this is the core problem with traffic circles: nobody is taught how to do this. Every other traffic control method is pretty self-evident once you learn what the colors of the lights and shapes of the signs mean.
Traffic circles are the opposite of self-evident. They require training, and no such training is available, so far as I'm aware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
California tickets - many can be ignored
1. Check to see if it is a Snitch Ticket, the fake/phishing camera tickets California police send out to bluff car owners into ID'ing the actual driver. Snitch Tickets say, at the top, "Courtesy Notice-This is not a ticket," and you can ignore them! Skeptical? Google: Snitch Ticket.
2. Were you in the LA area? Even a REAL red light camera ticket from ANY city (or the sheriff) in LA County can be ignored, as the LA courts do not report ignored camera tickets to the DMV. This was revealed in LA Times articles in 2011. Skeptical? Google: Red light camera no consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: California tickets - many can be ignored
Oh, there are a lot more reasons than those. HighwayRobbery.net.
Be very careful about ignoring tickets anywhere outside of LA county though...
Best advice ever: "Get a lawyer who specializes in Traffic Court." Most of them are relatively cheap (~$100 total) and they are very familiar with the system. Check with friends for recommendations, and a lot of these lawyers have good advice on websites on how to proceed. The good ones will review the evidence first before taking the case (and can offer you advice if you decide to fight it by yourself.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not look at the cause of the traffic instead
But, it's much easier to install a red light camera than to redesign the road to deal with the traffic.
When I commute home, there are sections of the road with 4 traffic lights within 2 miles ans stretches of road with no light. Can anyone guess what happens at rush hour? Traffic from one light backs up through the other light, yet traffic completely breaks up in the open stretch of road. My unscientific conclusion: traffic lights cause traffic, which causes people to get impatient, which causes people to run red lights. Therefore, the solution is to figure out how to do away with the traffic lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: jail time v. fines
I'm all in favor of traffic safety, but automated law enforcement is a step on the road to totalitarianism we should assiduously avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RLC are just a Fraud
www.motorists.org
www.banthecams.org
camerafraud on Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]