Motorists Prove Red-Light Cameras Don't Work

The one unresolved question is: "Is it illegal to time triffic lights in a manner that is out of line with the criteria you set forth?"

I believe many states have a "catchall" for operation of a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. If I were a cop who was interested in improving traffic safety, and were allowed the time to do such things, I would argue in court that it is unsafe for a person to operate a vehicle in such fashion that the motorist would be unable to handle an unexpected but readily foreseeable occurrence. If I had the proper instruments, I could prove that the motorist would not have been capable of reacting suitably if the light failed to change as expected.

Alternatively, if I could, I'd simply tweak the light so that when I saw such a motorist approaching it would delay the green light by an extra few seconds. Running a yellow light that has just turned red is in some cases inevitable and excusable. Running a light that has been red for many seconds is not excusable except in the rare case that the light has been red so long that it appears to be malfunctioning (e.g. because of a broken sensor).

I'll grant you that in the situation you described it was justified to run the light (of course you're making a split second decision and hoping not to t-bone that child in the car seat). That is a one in ten thousand circumstance. No system is perfect.

orry but I'm not buying any of that. The MAIN rule is don't follow too closely.

Yes, but I can't control the motorist behind me.

If someone is following too closely at an intersection and the lead car brakes for an amber light the car behind has 100% of the responsibility to stop. Not the camera, not the timing of the amber, nothing.

Which is better: to undertake a course of action which has a 1% chance of resulting an accident which the government will consider to be entirely someone else's fault, or taking a different course of action which will not result in an accident?

Yes, if I get whiplash because I stop and the car behind does not, insurance will cover my medical expenses, but still I'd rather avoid the injury if possible.

I'll grant you that in the situation you described it was justified to run the light (of course you're making a split second decision and hoping not to t-bone that child in the car seat).

There was no approaching cross traffic; all lanes had cars waiting at the light. Given that I would have almost a two-second head start on any cross-traffic motorist, and that I was flooring the accellerator, the risk of anyone actually managing to get in my path was pretty slim.

Besides, there would have been more danger to cross-traffic motorists if I'd waited at the line for an extra second or so before I got pushed.

I agree any dangerous situation should be avoided. I just don't see that the intersection cameras interfere with that. If motorists in my area generally take it slower through an intersection than they did before the cameras, some accidents will be avoided - or at least less damaging.

That will be something that will be tragically in-operative in any vehicle I buy that may have one of those devices...

Remember...

There is always a work around in anything mechanical...And computers can be fooled...

Redlight cameras are documented as causing more rear end crashes.

Then let's see it.

Study: Cameras Increase Fatal Rear End Accidents (Ontario)
Although three studies have shown a significant increase in rear-end collisions where red light cameras are used, cities using the devices are quick to dismiss such findings. Camera proponents maintain that such collisions are far less severe than angle collisions. This December 2003 study commissioned by Ontario, Canada's Ministry of Transportation shows that those rear-end collisions can be fatal. (Other studies drawing similar conclusions: Virginia, North Carolina, Australia.)
After evaluating the performance of red light cameras at 68 sites over two years, the report concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage accidents of 18.5 percent coupled with a 4.9 percent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions involving property damage alone jumped 49.9 percent.

That's one example. Another interesting link is this one from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, which supports the cameras:

...the FHWA study found that the average number of rear-end crashes went up 15 percent...

Interesting. I'm perfectly willing to change my mind about these things once I read this over.

I do know that in some communities like mine, the feel good town managers have instituted pedestrian crosswalks on major city streets. That's all well and good but there have been several accidents because a nice little old lady would stop her car in the right lane and motion a kid to cross only to have the kid slammed by a car that didn't stop in the left lane (he survived). My son has been in the same dilemma and was smart enough to refuse the insistant lady because he saw the oncoming traffic.

Point being, these idiot town managers who like walking better than driving have caused at least three kids to be injured. When I was a kid we knew getting across the road was dangerous and entirely up to our own devices. Thus we never got hurt.

The two studies contradict each other. If the NC study is accurate I'll take a few rear ends rather than t-bones.

The two studies contradict each other. If the NC study is accurate I'll take a few rear ends rather than t-bones.

There's nothing contradictory about it. They both claim that rear-end collisions increase when red light cameras go up. The only difference is in the authors' attitudes towards the cameras. As for the choice you present, we can reduce both without the red light cameras. You can have your cake and eat it too. I refer you to posts #6 and 48 in this thread.

I beg to disagree. They contradict in that the Canadian study shows that collisions of all types increase whereas the NC study shows that only rear collisions increase and that injuries decrease.

The two studies contradict each other. If the NC study is accurate I'll take a few rear ends rather than t-bones.

The only way someone is going to get T-boned is if either:

A motorist enters the intersection at least a second after the light turns red
A motorist who had approached a red light proceeds to enter the intersection when his light turns green without noticing that another vehicle that had been in the intersection for at least a second.

The clearance time on traffic signals is typically two seconds, of which I allocated half to each motorist.

I would argue that optimal safety and traffic efficiency will be achieved if yellow times are fairly long, motorists proceed through intersections if they expect to beat the light, and if all drivers expect that motorists may misjudge the light slightly.

For optimal traffic flow, a waiting motorist should able to proceed safely as soon as the last cross-traffic vehicle that will go through has passed. If yellow light times are long, but motorists proceed through intersections they expect to reach before the red, these conditions may be optimized. A motorist who is going to stop at a light that has turned yellow will typically slow down well sooner than is strictly necessary. Doing so provides a generous safety margin in case traction is less than ideal, and also makes his intentions clear to waiting cross-traffic motorists. Sometimes motorists may misjudge the yellow might be a small fraction of a second, but so what? There's more than enough safety margin and redundancy to allow for that.

I would regard those who push yellow lights excessively as being discourteous, but there's a big difference in my mind between a courtesy violation and a safety one. Entering an intersection in such a fashion as to risk a collision with even an alert driver is a safety violation. Entering an intersection in such a way as to unfairly delay the flow of other motorists is a courtesy violation. I see no reason to assign even remotely similar punishments to the two actions.

Out of curiosity, if one of the cameras snaps a motorist entering an intersection after his light has turned red, but before the opposing signal has turned green, does it delay the opposing signal? If not, I'd say that's a clear sign the cameras are more about revenue than safety.