Do Red Light Cameras Reduce Accidents?

Starting to see it's alll about the money??

http://autos.aol.com/article/red-lig...era-accidents/

I happen to think it is all about the money, but on the other hand,
if red-light cameras increase accidents, then the next logical argument is
that traffic signals themselves increase accidents, since if traffic signals
are installed we should be obeying them. If obeying them strictly causes
accidents, then perhaps something is wrong either with the implementation of
traffic signals or even the entire concept of having traffic signals.

In any case, I usually don't hear public officials talk about safety
when they implement red-light cameras-- all they talk about is the money. If
it were about safety, they would actually be hoping that they made not a
nickel on a single red-light camera. Or is human nature that irredeemable
that large numbers of people cannot be made to drive safely? If it were
really about safety, the penalty would not be a fine but perhaps a two-week
suspension of one's driver's license for the first offense or a mandatory
one-hour driver safety session. If someone had to take the session more than
a few times, presumably the person would get so sick of it that he would
mend his ways.

Finally, I think the people who complain the most about red-light
cameras are the ones who abuse traffic signals the most. We've had red-light
cameras around here for a year now and I haven't gotten a ticket or been
involved in an accident. I don't like them, but I can live with them.

There, have I offended everyone?

"Lil Abner" > wrote in message
...
> Starting to see it's alll about the money??
>
> http://autos.aol.com/article/red-lig...era-accidents/

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 19:03:02 -0500, "Andrew M. Saucci, Jr."
> wrote:

> I happen to think it is all about the money, but on the other hand,
>if red-light cameras increase accidents, then the next logical argument is
>that traffic signals themselves increase accidents, since if traffic signals
>are installed we should be obeying them. If obeying them strictly causes
>accidents, then perhaps something is wrong either with the implementation of
>traffic signals or even the entire concept of having traffic signals.

IIRC, there was a town in CA that discontinued the cameras because
whiel they were bringing in some money to the county, what they were
getting was miniscule incomparison to what was taken out of the local
economy and sent to the foreign vendor operating the cameras.
Something like US$15 million out for US$200K in revenue.

About the only time I would consider a signal to be defective (WRT to
rear end collisions when the light turns red) would be if the yellow
light is shortened so that drivers have to panic stop when the light
turns red. Otherwise, I'd say it is a problem of people following too
closely - perhaps lulled into a false sense of security by ABS,
traction control etc...

> In any case, I usually don't hear public officials talk about safety
>when they implement red-light cameras-- all they talk about is the money. If
>it were about safety, they would actually be hoping that they made not a
>nickel on a single red-light camera. Or is human nature that irredeemable
>that large numbers of people cannot be made to drive safely? If it were
>really about safety, the penalty would not be a fine but perhaps a two-week
>suspension of one's driver's license for the first offense or a mandatory
>one-hour driver safety session. If someone had to take the session more than
>a few times, presumably the person would get so sick of it that he would
>mend his ways.

Or perhaps a couple of weekends in gaol would send a better message.

> Finally, I think the people who complain the most about red-light
>cameras are the ones who abuse traffic signals the most. We've had red-light
>cameras around here for a year now and I haven't gotten a ticket or been
>involved in an accident. I don't like them, but I can live with them.

Me neither. When I'm driving locally, I go out of my way to avoid the
intersections where the cameras are monitoring.

> There, have I offended everyone?

I guess so...

--
"Why won't you let me set off the bomb, you *******s??"
--Adrian Edmondson as Vyvyan Basterd

"Andrew M. Saucci, Jr." > wrote in
t:

> I happen to think it is all about the money, but on the other
> hand,
> if red-light cameras increase accidents, then the next logical
> argument is that traffic signals themselves increase accidents, since
> if traffic signals are installed we should be obeying them. If obeying
> them strictly causes accidents, then perhaps something is wrong either
> with the implementation of traffic signals or even the entire concept
> of having traffic signals.
>
> In any case, I usually don't hear public officials talk about
> safety
> when they implement red-light cameras-- all they talk about is the
> money. If it were about safety, they would actually be hoping that
> they made not a nickel on a single red-light camera. Or is human
> nature that irredeemable that large numbers of people cannot be made
> to drive safely? If it were really about safety, the penalty would not
> be a fine but perhaps a two-week suspension of one's driver's license
> for the first offense or a mandatory one-hour driver safety session.
> If someone had to take the session more than a few times, presumably
> the person would get so sick of it that he would mend his ways.
>
> Finally, I think the people who complain the most about
> red-light
> cameras are the ones who abuse traffic signals the most. We've had
> red-light cameras around here for a year now and I haven't gotten a
> ticket or been involved in an accident. I don't like them, but I can
> live with them.
>
> There, have I offended everyone?

Why,are you TRYING to offend?

I've been rear-ended several times when I stopped for a red light and the
person behind didn't. So,if I spotted a car behind me that wasn't going to
stop in time,if I run the RL to escape the collision,I'M the one who pays.
I -have- been able to avoid rearenders by doing that,pre-RLC era.

I've seen 1-second yellow lights(4-sec is standard,IIRC),and there was a
report that some locales were SHORTENING yellow durations by a sec to
increase the number of RLCamera tickets to increase revenue.
also,there's a study that shows lengthening the yellow duration reduces RL
running AND accidents.

I am anti-RLC,because the RLC tickets generally don't issue license points
to the violator,so chronic RLrunners don't get their licenses revoked,other
drivers don't get to SEE the RL runner pulled over by police and issued a
REAL ticket(that has a big effect on other drivers),and because they are
primarily about generating revenue and not safety.
Also because a RLC ticket doesn't arrive until WEEKS after the
violation,and the violator doesn't even remember the violation,and they
could run many RLs before they get their first RLC ticket.

POLICE should be doing their JOB and writing up the RL runners.
Police need to lose their radar and laser speed guns and return to moving
traffic patrols where they catch other moving violations along with RL
runners and speeders.That would improve driving and safety.

BTW,the recent widespread usage of cellphones is one reason for so many
people running RLs.(and other collisions and moving violations.)
They simply are not paying attention to their driving.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Feb 6, 7:03*pm, "Andrew M. Saucci, Jr." <spam-o...@anti-
grunge.local> wrote:
>
> if red-light cameras increase accidents, then the next logical argument is
> that traffic signals themselves increase accidents, since if traffic signals
> are installed we should be obeying them. If obeying them strictly causes
> accidents, then perhaps something is wrong either with the implementation of
> traffic signals or even the entire concept of having traffic signals.

That certainly seems possible, but it seems more likely the factor
with the greatest capacity/opportunity for error is to blame.

> * * * * In any case, I usually don't hear public officials talk about safety
> when they implement red-light cameras-- all they talk about is the money.

How difficult is it to grasp the concept that running red lights is
contrary to a safe environment for motorists and pedestrians?

There seems to be a definite tendency to assume city administrators
are beamed to and fro and are protected from observing the plague that
red light running has become... (just like the opponents of RoR turns
predicted, lo, those many years ago).

> If
> it were about safety, they would actually be hoping that they made not a
> nickel on a single red-light camera.

Non sequitur.

> Or is human nature that irredeemable
> that large numbers of people cannot be made to drive safely?

Apparently not without a stick.

> If it were
> really about safety, the penalty would not be a fine but perhaps a two-week
> suspension of one's driver's license for the first offense or a mandatory
> one-hour driver safety session.

Non sequitur.

> If someone had to take the session more than
> a few times, presumably the person would get so sick of it that he would
> mend his ways.

I think that's the rationale behind larger fines.

Driving schools cost money. Fines bring in money. Once a motorist
has convinced themselves they know everything and the purpose of
traffic code is to delay their travels it appears there is no longer
any capacity for learning otherwise without serious incentive.

> * * * * Finally, I think the people who complain the most about red-light
> cameras are the ones who abuse traffic signals the most. We've had red-light
> cameras around here for a year now and I haven't gotten a ticket or been
> involved in an accident. I don't like them, but I can live with them.

I am assured to see more instances of RLRing today, quite possibly in
a matter of seconds, than I saw in my first 20 years of driving.

Do the number of RLR instances you witness suggest you might live a
little longer with them?

> * * * * There, have I offended everyone?

Not me.
-----

- gpsman