Supporters of red light cameras say project should be low-cost(Austin TX)

590 KLBJ ^ | 07/26/2006 | 590 KLBJ

[ziggy_dlo]

Supporters of red light cameras say project should be low-cost

7/26/2006

Austin City Council members who support red light cameras say they want to find a system that won’t cost the city much money or effort. City Council Member Lee Leffingwell says the goal of a red light camera system would not be to boost the city’s revenues, but he also wants to avoid draining city funds for a network of cameras at busy intersections. “What I would be looking for in a proposal that comes back to us is one that has zero or minimal up-front costs to the city, and as much of the overhead and administrative process that can be done is actually handled by the company,” Leffingwell said.

Some other cities with red light cameras work out arrangements with the private company supplying the gear so that the company is paid based on the number of citations the red light cameras generate.

The Council could ask the City Manager on Thursday to draft a plan for installing red light cameras at busy intersections. But actually purchasing the cameras and ordering them to be installed would require a separate vote

[af_vet_rr]

I am just looking for the studies that find no benefit to lengthened yellows.

You don't need a study when you have common sense, which you appear to have.

I'm not going to pretend that lengthened yellow lights will stop all redlight runners - I live in Austin, and have seen my share of people who damn near t-boned me or somebody else because they flat-out ran a red light.

On the other hand, the majority of people I've seen that run redlights would have made it with another second or two - they were simply going too fast or were too close to the intersection and worried about the cars behind them (both of those are entirely seperate issues unto themselves, I must admit, and I don't know how to address those, as telling Texans to obey every posted speed limit is like trying to herd cats).

I would much rather see adding an extra second or two for, say six months, just to see how things go. Contrary to what we see in everyday traffic, the majority of drivers are not stupid and most will not enter an intersection with a red light (and if they are prone to that, Darwin will eventually catch up to them, one way or the other, hopefully before they take somebody else out).

I don't know if I should even stir up this can of worms, but I have noticed that a lot of people who run redlights are gabbing away on cell phones. That may just be because I noticed it a few times and was fixated on it ever since.

[elkfersupper]

If it was criminal, they would have to verify who was driving. Instead, they can just mail the owner the fine.

The resisters around here have a plan - ignore the "administrative fine" long enough, and it turns criminal.

Then you get your day in court, the courts are overwhelmed, and they decide to knock it off.

Absent that method, they're hanging gasoline-filled tires on the cameras and lighting them in the U.K. and Australia.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Here's more help for you to work toward YOUR engineering degree:

http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies/tti04.pdf

[af_vet_rr]

Absent that method, they're hanging gasoline-filled tires on the cameras and lighting them in the U.K. and Australia.

They might start doing that here - people in other cities in Texas are used to the redlight cameras, but people in Austin are pissed.

The city could add an extra second or two, to the lights, and try it out. They have cameras covering the major roads, and I've been in their traffic control center - they have the ability to adjust the signals depending on traffic flow, they can see problems that crop up and get the proper people dispatched (whether it's police or fire/EMS) faster than calls to 9/11, they are working on having large signs that can tell you travel times between various points (San Antonio has had it for a while, and it can be very useful), as well as can tell you detours if there are wrecks, or whatever, in real-time.

They could put the delay in and try it out, but I've been hearing them push the red light camera project for a while, and the liberals see the bucks being raked iin by other Texas cities. It's not something that would require them to go out to the signals, they control most of them from that center.

[Dead Corpse]

They want it to be low cost. It won't be.

They say it won't be for revenue generation. It will be.

They say it will reduce the number of folks running red lights. What they don't say is that the number of rear-end collisions will rise. Especially after they shorten the yellow for increased revenue generation.

In short, "they" are a bunch of fracken LIARS who should be removed from office immediately.

And I say this as someone whose pet traffic peeve is morons running stop signs and red lights.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Indeed. The lesson to be learned if one is willing to avoid simplistic thinking, and an obedient sheeple (or jackboot) mindset is that traffic engineering is often poorly done (it's government, after all.) Signals are sometimes miusplaced, poorly visible, and poorly programmed.

There are LOTS of benefits to be gained by fixing those things, because those problems are what CAUSES many or most of red-light running incidents. Simple signal timing can essentially eliminate the opportunity to run red lights, whether inadvertant, careless, or intentional.

When you reward the bureaucrats with camera revenue for leaving these dangerous problems alone, you'll just get more harm to public safety.

[Tall_Texan]

Here's an idea: Give camera's to the homeless and the illegal day labors and have them snap the pictures...

Every major intersection has them around here so why not put them to use? LOL.

I understand Houston went through this and there is some company offers a device where you can spray something over your license plate that looks normal in regular light but blacks out the license plate number when cameras shoot it.

[Dead Corpse]

Parmer and Dessau as well. Evening traffic backs up, literally, a mile. Half hour, sometimes more, just to make it through this one light.

Parmer and 35, with the Dell/Samsung traffic, and Howard and 35 are a mess as well.

Whoever the traffic engineer for Travis County is, they should be fired. Then again, I think the same thing about most of the CAMPO board as well.

[ops33]

What you cite if my biggest problem with red light cameras. I have no problem with the cameras actually catching people running the redlights. I have no desire for myself or my family to be hurt or worse because of some Jackass who can't stop for a red light. But I do have problems with private companies operating the cameras since it does bring in the profit motive into law enforcement.

[jim_trent]

More "axe to grind" websites. Is this what passes as engineering to YOU???? I pity the public that has to pass over, though, or under your designs.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Who do I trust, your unsupported recollection, or a collection of published studies with real data?

Buzz off.

[jim_trent]

CONGRATULATIONS.

You finally found a webpage that had a truely independent study. Too bad it does not say what you think it says. In fact, it specifically says:

"The problem of red-light-running is widespread and growing; its cost to society is significant. A wide range of potential countermeasures to the red-light-running problem exist. These countermeasures are generally divided into two broad categories: engineering countermeasures and enforcement countermeasures. A study by Retting et al. (4) has shown that countermeasures in both categories are effective in reducing the frequency of red-light-violations.
…………
(Lists several countermeasures, including)

6. If officer enforcement is determined to be unsuccessful or ineffective, then camera enforcement can be considered."

That does not sound like a blanket condemnation of red-light-cameras to me. Like good engineers should do, though, the study recommends other less obtrusive measures be tried first.

As far as the graph, I have seen that kind of thing before. If you read my original post, I already said that there is a small, but temporary increase in safety when the yellow light is lengthened. However, it does not stay. Within 6 months, the people learn the new limits and the number of accidents goes back to where it was before. I looked and did not see anything about this graph being a long term study.

[airborne]

So, I'm stopped in the middle of the intersection behind some guy who suddenly decided to make a left turn.

By the time he turns, I'm in the middle of the intersection and the light has already turned red.

Should I get a ticket?

[Atlas Sneezed]

That's what lawyers call "dicta". I want conclusions supported by data, not "cameras may be considered." The data say what you denied, which is that increasing the yellow reduces crashes.

[jim_trent]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

[elkfersupper]

My daughter is an engineer.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell her periodically - you should occasionally get out of your bat cave and try to navigate the real world for a day or so.

[af_vet_rr]

Indeed. The lesson to be learned if one is willing to avoid simplistic thinking, and an obedient sheeple (or jackboot) mindset is that traffic engineering is often poorly done (it's government, after all.) Signals are sometimes miusplaced, poorly visible, and poorly programmed.

There are LOTS of benefits to be gained by fixing those things, because those problems are what CAUSES many or most of red-light running incidents. Simple signal timing can essentially eliminate the opportunity to run red lights, whether inadvertant, careless, or intentional.

That's what drives me nuts about this - it's clear it's revenue generation. Having seen the city's traffic control center, it's clear they know where the problems are, and they can adjust things from there and tweak them and measure the results.

They don't need cameras - they spend 15 minutes adding a second or two to the yellow lights (if that, it's very automated these days). Psychologically (and physically in a way), that gives drivers a little more time to make a decision, which may not seem like much, but a lot of people may need it, or it will allow them to do what's best.

Instead, what's going to happen, is I'm going to be in my Subaru or Tacoma, both of which stop on a dime practically, and the moment I see yellow, if I'm not in the intersection, I'm going to slam on the brakes.

Doesn't matter that without the redlight cameras I would have normally went, and the people behind me could have estimated that I would go through the yellow as well.

I'm not going to pay $250, and God help the people behind me, even though they think I should have went through because it just turned yellow as I got there, because I've put them in a situation where they have to slam on their brakes a lot quicker and harder, and I've created a ripple situation, because people behind them have to respond quicker than they normally would have.

That's going to happen every single day, who knows how many times an hour at every single intersection.

There are people who will pull this "oh, well, that's the way the system is supposed to work, it cuts down on redlight runners" crap.

The reality is, yellow has become red, because regardless of what is said about what will trigger the camera, nobody wants to risk a $250 ticket they can't fight. I don't see how this won't result in more traffic accidents (maybe not as severe as somebody t-boning somebody else, but accidents nonetheless).

[Arrowhead1952]

Whoever the traffic engineer for Travis County is, they should be fired.

I don't know if you remember back the first time Austin voted on the light rail issue, that issue was talked about quite a lot. I used to listen to Sam & Bob in the morning on KVET, until Sam got me all PO'ed with his yellow dog democrat rants. They got their hands on a memo on Capital Metro's Letterhead that went to the city of Austin and TXDOT.

The "smoking gun" memo as they called it, instructed the traffic engineers to purposely keep the traffic lights out of sync, so people would vote for light rail. Too bad for Cap Metro that the rail issue was voted down TWICE by sensible citizens.

I just love to be in traffic behind the empty Cap Metro buses that seem to be so under powered, they can't pull their shadow. < /sarcasm>

[af_vet_rr]

The "smoking gun" memo as they called it, instructed the traffic engineers to purposely keep the traffic lights out of sync

This same tactic is going to be used to encourage people to use the tollways that are coming hard and fast. The feeders are going to have the lights out of sync to make the tollways the only reasonable option (by creating a bigger traffic jam - infuriating, but whoever came up with the idea was a genius).

[Dead Corpse]

Too bad for Cap Metro that the rail issue was voted down TWICE by sensible citizens.

I remeber that memo. Nothing has changed since then. Plus, somehow, despite us voting it down TWICE... they are still putting in a light rail line from Downtown to Leander.

WTF??? Exactly how does that work? They put it on a referendum, it gets sh*tcanned, and they decide to do it anyway?

Isn't that coming awefully close to a criminal offense?