It's time to put the brakes on red-light cameras

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-cameras-20100930,0,7565447.story

by cwan • 16 years ago

41 47 16 years ago

byoung26• 16 years ago

I think the statistics are misleading. In cases where the number of "accidents at intersections" fell, I'd like to know whether the number of accidents between the crosswalks fell, while the number of accidents leading up to the intersection rose. I have personally witnessed people either speeding up to beat the camera or slamming on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket. I'd bet that the number of rear-end accidents on approach to camera-monitored intersections increased.

cninja• 16 years ago

Statistics are always misleading, especially when politics are involved.

zacharycohn2• 16 years ago

I'd love to see a detailed breakdown of the types of accidents too. I know that I have slammed on my brakes when a light turns yellow, or the person in front of me does, and we narrowly avoid a collision.

I think it'd also be interesting to know the geography of the area leading up to the light. One in my hometown is at the top of a steep hill, so you pretty much have to be accelerating rather hard to even get to the light. There's an area where you can be in when it switches to yellow where you HAVE to go or destroy your brakes, but it puts you pretty solidly in the middle of the intersection.

Timmy_C• 16 years ago

You bet right:

http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/PubDetails.aspx?PubNo=05-R21

byoung26• 16 years ago

A-ha!

Further the data show that the cameras are correlated with a definite decrease in crashes that are directly attributable to red light running, a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes. More time is needed to determine whether the severity of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes.

ergo982• 16 years ago

Total number of accidents is only a part of the story. I would fully expect minor rear-ending types of accidents to increase, possibly substantially. On the flip side I would expect the deadly T-boning variety to decrease. The unproven assumption being that minor accidents increase, serious accidents decline.

byoung26• 16 years ago

I would expect the deadly T-boning variety to decrease

I think this variety of accident happens when the light has been red for quite some time (i.e. more than a few seconds). The people who get tickets (from what I've seen personally, and from talking to police) are people who just missed the yellow light by a few tenths of a second. The latter group are the ones a traffic light cameras are affecting (the ones alert enough to slam on the brakes or speed up). People who run stale red lights (the ones who cause major accidents) are either oblivious to the fact the light is red at all (e.g. drunk drivers), or they don't care (e.g. high speed pursuits).

mrbird2• 16 years ago

From the report:

"We found that the program cannot conclusively demonstrate that it has reduced traffic collisions, thereby increasing public safety."

It goes on to recommend that data collection be improved to answer the question of what kinds of collisions and violations are being observed, in greater detail.

mrbird2• 16 years ago

I assumed that the cost to the city was mostly of the startup variety, namely installation and associated tasks. This would mean that in the future, it could be a revenue generator. But it turns out that it's running at a loss, annually. From the report itself:

2008: 2.3M revenue, 3.8M costs (1.5M loss) 2009: 3.0M revenue, 4M costs (1M loss)

The bulk of the cost is "vendor contract cost" which I believe means ongoing support, and appears to be on top of the initial investment.

It appears adding more cameras would only compound the losses.

(disclaimer: I do not read reports like this for a living; interpret my analysis at your own risk)

greyboy• 16 years ago

I believe another 'cost' is that the vendor gets a cut of payment (a certain percentage). Warning: that's what I've read in the past.

Cushman• 16 years ago

Which sounds pretty damn shifty, but if I were selling a traffic monitoring system I'd probably try to get some profit sharing in the contract.

njharman2• 16 years ago

> more cameras would only compound the losses

There's volume efficiencies to consider. Typically the vendor processes the images, mails citations, maintains equipment, provides court testimoney does everything except sign citations (which in most jurisdictions must be done by a sworn peace officer).

zacharycohn2• 16 years ago

On a somewhat related note to this story, there's a section of Route 50 on your way westbound into Washington DC where there is a speed camera set to 35mph about a mile after the road switches from being 65mph. It's pretty hilarious to still be driving around 50mph, and then simultaneously have everyone slam their breaks on, go 35 for about 200ft, and then speed back up to 50.

I'd love to see some hidden no-penalty speed cameras before/after marked ones to record how effective they are at traffic calming, rather than simply causing people to slow down specifically where they know the camera is.

IgorPartola• 16 years ago

They really spent $2.5M on 32 cameras?

byoung26• 16 years ago

The city, meanwhile, has to pay the contractor for the red-light system, the salaries of police and transportation officials who monitor the program, and a Superior Court fee to benefit court reporters

I'm guessing they assign one officer from each police station whose jurisdiction includes a camera to review the images (they weed out images of police cars, firetrucks, and ambulances). These officers are probably the ones who go to court if you choose to fight the ticket. At $50k/year, and assuming two cameras per jurisdiction, you're looking at $1.6 million in salary alone over a two year period.

adolph2• 16 years ago

The governmental entities around Houston claim that they make the driver pay (police, city bus, school bus, garbage, etc.):

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/11066653/detail.ht...

orangecat• 16 years ago

Red light cameras are in the same category as software patents: possibly a good idea in theory, but doomed to failure and abuse when implemented by actual humans.

asmithmd13• 16 years ago

"red-light violators busted by the cameras have to pay a $446 citation"

Holy Sh!7 that is big fine for sneaking through a red light.

Here in Boston you have to be careful not to get rear ended when you are the first in line to stop at a red light. And don't even think of stopping on yellow -- that earned me a horn blast and finger as they zoomed around me when I first moved here.

It is not just my imagination -- as part of finishing the big dig a temporary light was mis-timed to give a green left turn arrow to one direction while at the same time the opposite direction had green ball. This went un-noticed for 3 months, everyone just assumed the other people were going through on red.

pavel_lishin• 16 years ago

> green ball

This is the first time I've heard this term; is it common to the Northeast, or where you're from, or what?

asmithmd13• 16 years ago

I might have heard it before -- I was trying to distinguish from any kind of green arrow.

gxti• 16 years ago

It's the technical name for a solid indication. I've never heard it used in common parlance but that's how it's referred to in e.g. the USDOT Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

gaius• 16 years ago

Anywhere in the US, if you have MA plates other drivers will give you a wide berth!

sunkan• 16 years ago

I am one of those victims. Not only paid $550 and another 8hrs of my life trying to deal with it in the court unsuccessfully. All for not coming to a complete stop before taking the right turn. Live and learn :)

evilduck• 16 years ago

Game theory at its best. Red light cameras are a lose-lose scenario, if you're in the wrong and fight it, you lose money and time, if you're in the right and fight it, you lose time, if you just don't fight it, you just lose money. There's no way to be involved with red light cameras and not be penalized.

alain94040• 16 years ago

In what way are you a victim? You ran a red light. Have you any clue what kind of accident that creates. I'm sure you were a tenth of a second late, so didn't endanger anyone, right?

Well, I have been first-hand crossing an intersection with someone ignoring the red light. It's not fun :-(

tocomment3• 16 years ago

I never figured a camera can tell if you stop on red when turning right? That seems like it would require advanced AI. Is that really what happened to you?

Xurinos3• 16 years ago

   And don't even think of stopping on yellow -- that earned 
   me a horn blast and finger as they zoomed around me when I 
   first moved here.

I avoid responding favorably to threats. If they want to break the law, that is between the cops and them. Also, I try to avoid braking suddenly. If I am stopping at a soon-to-be red light, my tailgaters are aware of it.

Change starts with one person.

asmithmd13• 16 years ago

I don't think he meant it as a threat -- he was genuinely annoyed at my blatant disregard for local customs.

And don't think the cops will make any effort to correct this. Just yesterday I sat looking at a green light and watched a cop ignore two people go through a full red light. I guess he knows there is no way the charge would be upheld. A green light is purely just advisory in Boston, be sure to look both ways also.

amalcon• 16 years ago

I have taken to just smiling and waving when that happens * . It may not help, but it sure makes me feel better.

* -it happens about once a month, even though I only drive about 2 hours a week

lr• 16 years ago

The thing that I have always disliked about red light cameras is that it removes what I feel is the deterrent effect that a police officer has when others see a car pulled over. People slow down when they see a police car with its lights on (well, maybe not in LA, but in a lot of places, people do), and if they see it often enough in the same locations, their likelihood to speed or go through a red light is going to go down. With a red light camera, you have none of that.

matwood2• 16 years ago

In Boulder, CO they have a few red light cameras and huge signs before each intersection warning drivers that they are there. It still didn't stop the idiot next to me from running the light. I saw the flash from the cameras as he went through. I guess the point is that you'll always have idiots even with some sort of active deterrent.

bdwalter• 16 years ago

In Portland Oregon they are now reducing the yellow times in order to increase red light camera revenue. Somebody needs to put a stop to this madness before too many people die.

matwood2• 16 years ago

States and cities are looking for anyway to increase revenue right now. Expect to see more shortening of yellow times and increased law enforcement where fines can be levied.

btilly• 16 years ago

If they care about safety, they need to lengthen the yellow lights rather than make them illegally short. http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni... just lists 6 cities that have illegally short lights, but I've seen enough in Long Beach to know it happens more often than reported.

njharman2• 16 years ago

Working with the city government of LA (long ago) opened my eyes to how rampant bribes, kickbacks and the rest of corruption we associate with small third-world countries is in the USA.

The main difference being it's kept to a higher level (top gov officials and the rich/corporations) here in the land of the free.

WillyF• 16 years ago

I still can't believe that there isn't some sort of standard time for a yellow light. I live in Chicago, and the yellows are extremely short. When we drive up to the suburbs to see my girlfriend's family, I am shocked that the light stays yellow for what seems like an eternity. I think I remember reading an article about cities changing the timing on lights to eek even more revenue out of the red light cameras.

tocomment3• 16 years ago

I think the ultimate answer is to convert stoplights to circles. I've heard they're safer and more efficient.

tocomment3• 16 years ago

Why the downvote? You don't like traffic circles?

WildUtah• 16 years ago

Safer for cars maybe, but more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and slower for busses. The last thing we need is more incentive to drive and worse facilities for sustainable transportation.

heyrhett• 16 years ago

Only government could lose money on something like this. They should just have a private company set it up, and make the companies bid on the right to operate it.

adolph2• 16 years ago

I think in most places municipal governments did just that. Unfortunately, one of the problems with setting it up that way is that in many states there isn't much bite behind the tickets. If you don't pay, nothing happens.

It's time to put the brakes on red-light cameras

Related Stories