Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia DOT Study Shows Cams Increase Injury Accidents
The Newspaper.com ^ | 1/27/2005 | The Virginia Transportation Research Council,

Posted on 01/27/2005 4:29:24 PM PST by leadhead

The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury accidents.

A brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light camera programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occured where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The Virginia Transportation Research Council at the request of the state transportation secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia's camera law -- motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona).

Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.

This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.

(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; cameras; privacy; redlightcameras; revenueraising; traffic; transportation; vdot
The Law of Unintended Consequences
1 posted on 01/27/2005 4:29:24 PM PST by leadhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: leadhead

This increase in accidents can be liad to the fact that people have to re-learn that red means "stop," not "Go ahead if you feel lucky."


2 posted on 01/27/2005 4:32:12 PM PST by Clara Lou (Hillary Clinton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou
This increase in accidents can be liad to the fact that people have to re-learn that red means "stop," not "Go ahead if you feel lucky."

I always check the rear view mirror when I stop at an aged yellow or fresh red light.....

3 posted on 01/27/2005 4:36:24 PM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: leadhead

I'm not surprised in the least. If I see a camera mounted near a traffic light, then I'm much more likely to slam on the brakes for a yellow then I would be otherwise. Even if it's on say Route 29 and there isn't another car within 5 miles. So you can imagine what happens if people do this in the suburban areas.

Saying that they added the cameras to cut down on accidents is a bit bull. I'm sure the fact that these things have raked in tons of revenue in the places where they've been deployed had nothing to do with it...


4 posted on 01/27/2005 4:38:01 PM PST by Ex-Dem (AFL-CIO - Where organized labor becomes organized crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadhead
the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents.

Well, duuuhhh!

5 posted on 01/27/2005 4:43:29 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Got Gas?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadhead

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that Big Brother would introduce a whole new set of problems.


6 posted on 01/27/2005 4:46:25 PM PST by steveegg (The secret goal of lieberals - to ensure that no future generation can possibly equal theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

I always check the cross-traffic when my light turns green. I'm not about to enter the intersection until I check the situation. I do not want to be a in broadside accident.


7 posted on 01/27/2005 4:48:46 PM PST by Clara Lou (Hillary Clinton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem

I thought the sole reason for the cameras was to increase revenue. In San Diego when they installed the cameras they also reduced the length of the yellow light so they could catch people who didn't think the light would turn red so quickly.


8 posted on 01/27/2005 5:02:01 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: leadhead
The Law of Unintended Consequences

When the answer to the question is already known, it becomes the law of unintended stupidity.

9 posted on 01/27/2005 5:03:23 PM PST by Publius6961 (The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen, ignorance and stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadhead
the original promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
A good libertarian economist will suggest that seat belts and air bags have the unintended consequence of making the driver feel more secure, and thereby making the driver less risk-averse in his behavior . . . so there's no way of knowing whether they save lives or cause more accidents than the lives they save. Most people would think twice about taking a chance driving, if the steering column was tipped with a spear point!

10 posted on 01/27/2005 5:35:56 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

interesting


11 posted on 01/27/2005 5:39:34 PM PST by GretchenM (Removing this tag could result in permanent injury or being reported to the feds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadhead

Well this means only one thing. Its time for rear mounted airbags. Children will now have to ride in the trunk.


12 posted on 01/27/2005 6:32:05 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Most people would think twice about taking a chance driving, if the steering column was tipped with a spear point!

Please do not make fun of my trusty Valiant and my death wish.

13 posted on 01/27/2005 6:37:44 PM PST by harrowup (Just naturally perfect and humble of course)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: leadhead

The article fails to address the additional revenue increase to the city from red light runners who are now caught on camera.....and that's what really counts?


14 posted on 01/27/2005 6:42:07 PM PST by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Most people would think twice about taking a chance driving, if the steering column was tipped with a spear point!

Having driven small cars most of my life, I've always been careful. I used to drive VW bugs and the "Idiots Guide" was my Chilton's and more. Although it was very hippy-dippy and dope induced, from this book came the idea "Always drive as if you are tied to the front bumper." While I don't remember it as being a commentary on safe driving (I think it was more about how to drive a fragile car in a gentle fashion), I've always kept that in mind.

I'm finally moving on to bigger vehicles. My VW's led to my Toyota then my Honda... to an Eddie Bauer Ford Explorer. But I still drive that way.

15 posted on 01/27/2005 6:46:35 PM PST by Big Giant Head (Barring all differences, they're identical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: festus; TheMom
Children will now have to ride in the trunk.

LOL!!!!!

16 posted on 01/27/2005 7:09:23 PM PST by Eaker ("I am a Scientist ..................... and that was fast for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clara Lou

You really HAVE to check oncoming traffic these days due to so many red-lighters. And don't you just 'love' the idiot behind you that honks impatiently cause you don't just blindly rush into the intersection? It's not HIS behind that would be broadsided, after all.

In Houston, it really feels like over half of the motorists haven't got a CLUE about how to drive, much LESS drive defensively. It gets scarier every day. And our insurance rates climb steadily in proportion. If driving is really a privilege (not a right), how come so many are being extended this privilege when they clearly aren't capable (or worthy) of driving?

EOR




17 posted on 01/28/2005 1:42:00 PM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: leadhead

There's always a trade off.


18 posted on 01/28/2005 1:45:11 PM PST by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson