Rear-end crashes go up after red-light cameras go in.

Car and Driver ^ | September 2002

[Raymond Hendrix]

I don't know why they bother with all of the studies. The point is to collect more money by way of fines. Who are they trying to kid?

[Darth Sidious]

In Greensboro, the News & Record reports, "There has not been a drop in the number of accidents caused by red-light violations citywide since the first cameras were installed in February 2001. There were 95 such accidents in Greensboro in 2001, the same number as in 2000. And at the 18 intersections with cameras, the number of wrecks caused by red-light running has doubled." The granddaddy of all studies, covering a 10-year period, was done for the Australian Road Research Board in 1995 (cameras went up in Melbourne in 1984). Photo enforcement "did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and [cross-street] accidents," wrote author David Andreassen in the page-one summary.

You've no idea how much I'm giggling at reading this.

[backhoe]

The Eye in the Sky... looking at *You* - thread II

[John Jorsett]

Studies claiming safety improvements are used to justify installing the cameras. By revealing them to be false or biased, it makes it at least a little tougher to install them.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the only point of the cameras is to raise money. Have you ever seen a red light runner accident? It's pretty horrible.

[hattend]

Cities that have these cameras installed don't want to remove them even with increase in rear-end accidents. The tickets issued fill city coffers.

The IIHS wants more accidents. Insurance rates will continue to rise that way.

Follow the money.

BTTT

[Darth Sidious]

This may interest you, good sirs!

[vollmond]

The number of accidents are about the same, but rear-end collisions are up and side-impact collisions are down. That seems like it's a little safer for motorists. But these red-light cameras are just money making machines, and they need to go.

I got a ticket once based on a red light camera, and it was a fair cop. Paid the fine, and now I'm a little more careful at that intersection. The bad part was the envelope the ticket came in looked like junk mail, so it sat around for a couple of weeks in the junk mail pile. Someone must be looking over me, because as I was throwing away the stack, something made me open it. It was due that day, and bad things could have happened if I hadn't responded by the deadline.

[sheik yerbouty]

"Serve and protect" has become "Observe and Collect". Soon it will be "Stand and Deliver"!

[headsonpikes]

"Follow the money."

Worth bumpin'. ;^)

[Politicalmom]

Oh, yeah. That's why they make the yellow light SHORTER at the same time as they install these things.

[elbucko]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the only point of the cameras is to raise money.

I'm sorry too, but I disagree. If one has ever sat on as many city council meetings as I have, heard the nit-wit proposals presented before city councils by various company's promoting their project or product on the amount of revenue the city would receive. You would know that $$$$ is truly the mothers milk of politics at even the cross street level.

And BTW, the "councilpersons" love revenue.

[Alberta's Child]

The number of accidents are about the same, but rear-end collisions are up and side-impact collisions are down.

More important, from the insurance industry's perspective, is that in a rear-end collision there is no question about which driver is at fault. In a side-impact collision at a signalized intersection, you always end up with 15 witnesses claiming that the light was green when Driver #1 entered the intersection and 15 witnesses saying that it was green when Driver #2 entered the intersection.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I am not for big brother camera's, however, it's better to be rear-ended than get broadsided in an intersection. Intersections are death traps and getting t-boned in one is brutal, especially if the impact is on your side.

I speak from experience......

The only reason the rear-end collisions are going up is because people follow to close..Period....

But it does pay well for the individual that gets rear-ended....

[templar]

Thsoe people who cause accidents by slammng on their brakes at red lights during heavy traffic periods should be charged with reckless driving or, at least, failure to avoid an accident.

[Joe Hadenuf]

It was due that day, and bad things could have happened if I hadn't responded by the deadline.

Actually your lucky, as running a red light is Russian roulette...Most busy intersections have many fatalities in their credits....Getting broadsided by a vehicle moving at 40 mph can resemble an aircraft crash scene....Very brutal...

[elbucko]

"..That's why they make the yellow light SHORTER..

I usually coil in reply to the suggestion of any British-like proposal, but the exception proves the rule. Here goes:

In the UK, as you approach a green and its time to go to yellow approaches, the green begins to flash. Next comes yellow, and it too, flashes as it is going to go to red. It is remarkably simple and I wonder why the US hasn't gone to this like we have everything else British, except this really works.

[templar]

More important, from the insurance industry's perspective, is that in a rear-end collision there is no question about which driver is at fault.

Yes, but there could be from a legal perspective.

Most jusridictions have laws, legislative or case, regarding causing an accident by stopping too fast.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Thsoe people who cause accidents by slammng on their brakes at red lights during heavy traffic periods should be charged with reckless driving or, at least, failure to avoid an accident.

Tell it to the judge, and he will find you guilty....If someone stops for a red light and you rear-rear them, you are liable and at fault...No witnesses needed, as you were following to close.....Case closed....