Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

San Diego Drops Red-Light Cameras 330

Posted by Soulskill
from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.
gannebraemorr writes "U-T San Diego reports that the city has become 'the latest in a cadre of California cities turning their backs on red-light cameras — aloof intersection sentries that have prompted $490 tickets to be mailed to 20,000 motorists per year' there. 'Mayor Bob Filner announced his decision to take down the city's 21 cameras at a news conference set at the most prolific intersection for the tickets, North Harbor Drive and West Grape Street, near San Diego International Airport. A crew went to work immediately taking down "photo enforced" signs throughout the city. "Seems to me that such a program can only be justified if there are demonstrable facts that prove that they raise the safety awareness and decrease accidents in our city," Filner said of the cameras. "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."' I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively evaluating a program. I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Diego Drops Red-Light Cameras

Comments Filter:
  • by BoRegardless (721219) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @04:56PM (#42773169)

    " I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"

    Hey, I will go for that and just keep my pedal to the metal...unless you do the same and then we are in deep too doo.

    • Re:So Floor It ! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by icebike (68054) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:15PM (#42773323)

      Exactly. This would be crazy stupid.

      It would teach red light runners that they can, and will, get away with running red lights, because cross traffic will be stopped. I can't imagine the number of rear-ends this would cause for those having a green light switching to Red with no warning. I'd rather see it raise a crash-rated bollard to the high speed red-light runner. If someone is going to get hurt, it should be the scoff-law, not the guy with the green light.

      • by Rick Zeman (15628) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:31PM (#42773445)

        I had a buddy who used to cut his headlights when he'd come to a blind Y at night in their rural county to see if anyone was coming on the other leg. Woe unto him when he ran into someone (literally) who did the same thing....

        • Re:So Floor It ! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DarwinSurvivor (1752106) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:42PM (#42773511)
          I flash my lights instead. This gives a VERY visible signal to anyone coming the other way and most people will clue in and return the signal. I also make sure that I take the corner slow enough that I can stop if someone does appear doing the speed limit. I still flash the lights in case the other guy is going faster than the speed limit.
          • Yep, that's the way it's done.

            As to the claim "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."', I find that hard to believe without some extraordinary evidence. I don't see any evidence in TFA, just some local politician making good on a populist pledge. As for tourists, I received a traffic fine from the UK after getting back home to Oz after a holiday. I paid it because I had fucked up and it was the RigthThingToDo(TM), not because of the risk of being turned back at Heathrow for outstanding fines next
            • by chrismcb (983081)
              Why do you need "extraordinary" evidence? Number of wrecks before the installation, and number after (plus percentages) should be enough.
              Do you think the Major is giving up 10 million dollars, voluntarily, if there wasn't some hard evidence?
            • I'll note that there are probably some differences between the UK, Oz, and the US.

              Here in the US, those traffic cameras are owned and maintained by private companies. Those companies contract with the cities to operate those cameras. Those companies, of course, share revenues with the cities.

              While I haven't "studied" or "researched" those cameras, I've been aware of them, and I've listened to the talk about them for quite a long while. Everything I've heard indicates that they have zero impact on the rat

        • by icebike (68054)

          Seriously, how many Y intersections are there in the civilized world which are not also provided with a merge lane on the tail of the Y?
          Wouldn't slowing to a reasonable speed make more sense?

          Using one dangerous act to cover for another dangerous act qualifies your "buddy" as an idiot.
          Like Harry M. Whittington, you should choose your friends more carefully.

    • by xclr8r (658786)
      AN effective use would be to post them on major traffic zones so someone can view 4 cameras on a rotation that people can lookup an avoid high traffic areas and grab alternate routes.
    • by shentino (1139071)

      Sounds more like entrapment.

    • Re:So Floor It ! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:58PM (#42773639)

      In my city, red light cameras are also speeding cameras. City put them on all intersections that had lots of crashes. People do not speed through these intersections anymore. Number of crashes was reduced by over 50%. Number of serious crashes was reduced by 80%.

      Red light cameras, shortening yellow light to "catch" more people, etc. are not good. Speed+red light cameras and normal yellow duration, then put them on all the troubled intersections and you'll see positive results.

      Then again, the purpose of these cameras was not to make city money. The purpose was to reduced crashes which reduces costs for everyone. But then we have single auto insurance (gov't corp), so maybe the metrics are a little different. Seems to be working just fine though.

    • by egamma (572162)

      " I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"

      Hey, I will go for that and just keep my pedal to the metal...unless you do the same and then we are in deep too doo.

      He didn't say he'd switch the other persons light to green. All 4 directions would show red.

  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Saturday February 02, 2013 @04:58PM (#42773193)

    Not sure where the 9.8 Million figure came from, the actual story says they took in 1.2 Million in 2011. But after paying out to the camera company and the cost of for cops (who in today's whacky world generally make low 6 figures), the city only cleared 200,000$

    My guess is that the only people that actually "make out" are the camera companies.

    The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?

    I don't know.

    I've never got a "red light camera" ticket, because I don't run red lights, or speed through school zones.

    • The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?

      Yes. In a lot of cities, people just kind of sneak through on a red if they are close enough to the car in front of them that is already going through the intersection (if there's less than 4 feet between you and the car in front of you, then it's ok). I confess I have done that when I know I will be stuck at a red light for a long time. If there's a camera, I'm extra careful. I don't think that's the kind of red-light-running that would cause accidents, though.

      The thing you really need to watch out for a

      • In my state it is 3 seconds after stopping before you can go, the same for a stop sign.

        I think most people are just too lazy to stop. A guy in my car pool runs right on reds and stops all the time. He never gets caught but I still wouldn't try it.

        I always look both ways before going though a green light. The runners have already won.
        • In my state it is 3 seconds after stopping before you can go, the same for a stop sign.

          Wow, what state is that??

      • Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AK Marc (707885) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:34PM (#42773467)

        Yes. In a lot of cities, people just kind of sneak through on a red if they are close enough to the car in front of them that is already going through the intersection (if there's less than 4 feet between you and the car in front of you, then it's ok). I confess I have done that when I know I will be stuck at a red light for a long time. If there's a camera, I'm extra careful. I don't think that's the kind of red-light-running that would cause accidents, though.

        You figured it out in your last sentence. What's the point? To discourage running reds, or to decrease crashes? Red light cameras don't decrease crashes. What happens when the guy 4 feet in front speeds up at the yellow, and you follow, then he slams the brakes because he changes his mind because of the camera? Oh yeah, more crashes. And the worst crashes are when someone is more than a second after the red. The tickets go out to people like you describe at 0.5s after the red. But it's those seconds late (drunk, asleep, reading the morning paper) that kill, and they don't see the red light, they won't see the camera.

        • they don't see the red light, they won't see the camera.

          That's a good way to say it.

        • Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Informative)

          by dkf (304284) <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> on Saturday February 02, 2013 @06:35PM (#42773821) Homepage

          Red light cameras don't decrease crashes. What happens when the guy 4 feet in front speeds up at the yellow, and you follow, then he slams the brakes because he changes his mind because of the camera? Oh yeah, more crashes.

          Then you were driving incompetently. You shouldn't tail-gate. You should always leave enough room for you to stop if the guy in front does something strange like stamp on the brakes or swerve or something. Yes, they might be a lot to blame but you're still supposed to take care of yourself by anticipating the (immediate) future road conditions and driving so that you remain safe. Didn't you ever get taught that as part of showing you're fit to drive on the public highway?

          And the worst crashes are when someone is more than a second after the red. The tickets go out to people like you describe at 0.5s after the red. But it's those seconds late (drunk, asleep, reading the morning paper) that kill, and they don't see the red light, they won't see the camera.

          So, you're insisting that because cameras don't prevent all idiotic driving at an intersection, they're useless? I really don't agree, not at all. If you're behind the wheel, you should be fit to be driving safely, if not for yourself then for all your other fellow road users. That means being sober, alert and attentive. If you're not all three when driving, you're just a fucking jerkwad whose travel should be restricted to walking around the prison exercise yard.

          Before you ask, I'm just as strict with myself about driving safely. Safely or not at all. No excuses. No third option. (Being a passenger when someone else is driving safely instead — bus, taxi, whatever — is a variant on "not at all".)

          • by AK Marc (707885)

            Then you were driving incompetently.

            It's really a shame that nodoby reads for context anymore. Read the comment I was responding to. Note that my response is in relation to his 4-foot comment. I wasn't asserting I do it. And I'm not disagreeing that many drivers are incompetent. But the mechanisms for safety shouldn't exacerbate a known problem by causing crashes. Red light cameras cause crashes. People aren't addressing that little fact, and are instead quibbling about the fault of the crashes caused by the cameras, which is a non seq

          • Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by bondsbw (888959) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @07:31PM (#42774171)

            And you should be driving defensively, instead of assuming everyone on the road is driving in the correct frame of mind.

            Red light cameras work in theory. They cause more accidents in reality. My coworker wrote a research paper on red light cameras. As a police officer in a past life, he believed they would be very helpful. But after his research, he changed his mind. It concluded that their implementation results in more accidents at intersections, with an insignificant decrease in fatalities (read: fatalities at all intersections were trending down during the study period, including in cities that did not have red light cameras).

            A better system is longer amber lights, or (my favorite) a flashing green that precedes the amber light. That's much better than screwing over your citizens, creating headaches for your city government, while the camera vendor profits from your lack of research.

    • Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by xclr8r (658786) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:15PM (#42773325)
      1 data point. I've received one, it was a weird intersection where the light was in the middle instead of at the far side of the intersection. It was a fresh yellow and I was turning right, I slowed down to look for a pedestrian then back to oncoming traffic from the left, it was clear and I went. I slowed down enough so that the light turned red before I started seriously turning. The light was out of view from my perspective and I took the right hand turn. A live cop would probably let it go after a license plate check came up clean. The ticket was not high enough to warrant me fighting it in court but high enough that it stung a little. Also the video when analyzed was clear from an outside perspective that a violation occurred. Now I pay really close attention to the lights and practically full stop on all yellows to the complete frustration of people behind me. Safer? I don't know but it does affect how I drive. I just hope I don't get rear ended.
      • Your last point is exactly what makes these, and speeding camera, dangerous and even deadly. When these started going up in my state, I noticed a marked increase in rear-endings at the lights with these. My state also was the first to put the speed cameras on the freeway. Even though people routinely would do 90+ on that freeway, you rarely saw crashed.

        After the speed camera's went up on the freeway, I personally witnessed 5 accidents directly caused by the camera. It didn't make people drive slower on t
    • by alen (225700)

      Nope
      I live close to an intersection with a camera and at night I'm always seeing the flash when someone runs the light. Multiple flashes lots of times

    • Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lgw (121541) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:23PM (#42773385) Journal

      It may be hard to understand what's really going on here unless you live in CA, so let me try to explain.

      These cameras were originally installed to raise tax revenue. When the city you live in gets busted by the state for using illegally short yellows in order to increase camera ticket revenue, it's very clear this has nothing at all to do with safety.

      During the boom years, the police liked this idea - more revenue from the police dept meant more money to pay officers - what's not to like. But now most local governments in CA are either bankrupt (or like my county will be when Moody's changes their rules for rating Muni bonds), or for the first time in decades actually, finally starting to lay off employees in respose to the lack of revenue. In this new fincanial climate, the police hate these cameras! These cameras mean fewer officers are needed for the same ticket revenue, and that's just unacceptable. Since the cameras really aren't that great as a revenue source in the first place, they're being removed in city after city.

      Sad as their reason for removal is, it's still great that they're gone. At least in my city, you had no right to challenge these tickets - sure, the constitution says something about a jury for criminal offenses and civil matters over $20, so, hey, we declare these tickets to be a new thing, neither criminal nor civil, so there! There's very little a California city won't do for money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There was a pretty scathing news article a few months ago about Oakland regarding its policies on red light cameras.

        Basically, the story is that the city installed red light cameras with the promise of ticket revenue and reduced accidents. But like most studies have shown, the types of accidents just changed, from T-bone collisions in the intersections to rear-end collisions. But the revenue was there.

        So fast forward some time and there is suddenly a HUGE drop in red light violations (and subsequent traffic

        • by adolf (21054)

          So fast forward some time and there is suddenly a HUGE drop in red light violations (and subsequent traffic fines). What was discovered was that traffic engineers, without telling the police, had extended the yellow light by an additional second to reduce the number of red light violations.

          I parse that last bit as "to improve safety." And it sounds like it worked.

      • There's very little a California city won't do for money.

        The authorities out here on the left coast love to find new ways to take your money whether it be through taxes, fees, fines or just generally running up the cost of living with all their bullshit. The weather's nice, but even mostly sunny skies only goes so far once the government gets grabby enough with your money.

    • by mspohr (589790)

      I suspect most cops would like to make "low six figures" but a quick Google found multiple sources which showed San Diego cops start at $51,000 and go up to $88,000 with a median of $71,000.
      This sounds reasonable for a dedicated public servant... not "whacky" at all.

      I do agree that the camera companies are the ones making the big bucks. Typical privatizing public services so that the private sector makes lots of profit from the public.

      • by whoever57 (658626)
        I saw an advert for BART police the other day: Base pay $127k, plus benefits, including fully paid retirement.
        • by mspohr (589790)

          Sure...
          You could, of course actually go to the BART.gov web site and look at the job adverts for accurate information:
          ENTRY-LEVEL Police Officer
          Job ID:3698
          Location: Lake Merritt Admin Concourse
          Full/Part Time: Full-Time
          Regular/Temporary: Regular
          Entry-Level Rate: $4,161.050/Month

    • Re:Hmmmmm..... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Tridus (79566) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:56PM (#42773611) Homepage

      Red light cameras discourage running *yellows*, out of the fear of running reds and getting a ticket. They dramatically increase accident rates: http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/825583--red-alert-lucrative-cameras-spark-crashes-injuries [therecord.com]

      The other side effect is that they never bring in the money that's expected, and so yellows get shortened to catch more people running reds. They're a good deal for the companies selling them, but don't do anything for safety.

    • by houghi (78078)

      Do red light cameras discourage running reds?

      Yes. If I know there is a camera, I will not risk adding a bit of speed at orange. I will stop. (No, that does not mean that I make a habit running red lights if there isn't.)

      What they can do is add a lot more empty shells for camera's. Paint them bright orange, so everybody will see them. Now, at random, only put camera's in 1 out of 10 or out of 25 or whatever is a good number.
      Announce this to the public (not which shells are hot, but the number and even locati

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      Yes, red light cameras do discourage people from running reds. The problem is that people do an emergency stop if they see an amber light, and that can cause people to go into the back of them.

  • How about a light that just stays green longer if it detects more traffic in one direction than another?
    • Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)

      by masternerdguy (2468142) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @05:04PM (#42773229)
      That would mess a lot of things up. Contrary to popular belief most civil engineers aren't dumb, they've done fluid modeling and simulations (you know, science) to determine how long each light needs to be red and at what intervals. If you accelerate one part of the system you might disrupt the flow of traffic miles down the road. In my area some traffic lights are disabled past 7pm to improve traffic flow at non peak hours because the lighter traffic past 7 allows some optimizations.
      • by djmurdoch (306849)

        Contrary to popular belief most civil engineers aren't dumb

        I must live in the city that hired the rest of them:

        Light cycles are very long here, regardless of the time of day. If you miss that green, you'll be sitting there for 2 or 3 minutes, even if you are the only car on the road. (Unless you just drive through the red.)

        There are loops in the road to detect cars from less travelled roads, and they'll trigger a change in the light. There are also buttons to detect pedestrians, but they don't advance the cycle, they just give a walk signal. Eventually. The pe

        • by chromas (1085949)
          They probably used molasses values in their fluid sims.
          • by deimtee (762122)

            They probably used molasses values in their fluid sims.

            Given many of the drivers I see on the road, that would be appropriate.

        • Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Saturday February 02, 2013 @07:39PM (#42774243)
          The problem is not the civil engineers (at least probably not). It is probably the fact that the political appointees over ruled the traffic experts for some political reason. What makes this especially difficult is that you can't just fix it by making it so the political appointees can't over rule the subject matter "experts" because than you have no way to hold those subject matter "experts" accountable. Either the political appointees (the people who answer to the people who answer to the voters) can fire the subject matter experts (and if they can do that, they make it be known that if the subject matter experts don't do it their way they will be fired) or the subject matter experts are not accountable to anybody.
      • by AK Marc (707885)
        No, they are dumb. Lights are right for 10 seconds of every day. They don't work for most of the day. They set the timing of the lights based on the "main" (arbitrarily assigned, most of the time) and adjust the rest to minimize pain points, *not* to maximize throughput. If you time all the lights to 25 mph in a 35 or 45 mph zone, then everyone goes a slow, easy, 25 mph, no jams, no slowdowns (25 is slow enough that if someone slows to turn, the others go to 35 to make up the difference). If they time
        • by Shavano (2541114)
          It's not like a fluid, but the dynamics of traffic flow are modeled. But it's a relatively new science and has not been widely applied. For many decades, traffic light controls were programmed heuristically, with some being very bad and some systems being quite good. 30 years ago, the traffic controls in Denver along major roads was excellent, without causing big interruptions on the minor streets. That was all done based on timers and heuristics because there were no good mathematical models of traffic
      • by dfghjk (711126)

        ...and then the cops, bureaucrats, and private enforcement firms change it for their best interests. Science doesn't rule traffic law, profit does.

      • by cdwiegand (2267)

        And then your local HOA (like mine) asks the Council to have the traffic department change the timing anyways.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by networkzombie (921324)

        most civil engineers aren't dumb

        I call bullshit

        Lights would be far more efficient if they would simply put the detectors further from the lights so they determine how many cars are approaching from all directions. Currently the detectors are right next to the lights. All over my town (SoCal) I watch vehicles traveling in waves, and each wave gets a red light because a single vehicle beat the wave to the detector. It appears to be the most inefficient way to allow cross traffic for a modern society wi

    • by xclr8r (658786)
      Or turns a red light green when there is only one car. at the intersection. This happens a lot in the wee hours of the night.
  • wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"

    Such a proposed system would quicly train motorists to rush red lights even more than they already do, because they could supposedly depend on the system stopping motorists coming the other way. Problem is, if a red light isn't stopping a guy running a red light in one diection, what's going to stop a like minded driver in the other direction?

    The cost wold probably be not a lot more than about 1000 deaths a year, based on http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118914&page=1 [go.com] but it would have the bonus o

    • by jayveekay (735967)

      A variation of this would be that when cars traveling at dangerous speeds are detected coming from perpendicular directions, turn the lights green for both of them. ;)

  • "I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds."

    Once people know that they'll get a (de facto) green light by speeding, what do you think will happen? That does not sound like a good idea at all.

    • by sl149q (1537343)

      The obvious best practice would be to simply force all the lights to red. Don't reward the speeder. But also keep other vehicles out of the intersection if it appears that someone is going to fast.

      Not sure how you determine what cars at what speeds constitute a hazard. Or if the instrumentation and implementation provide enough benefit overall to make it worth doing.

  • Now convince Victoria Australia, I sincerely doubt we'll ever get rid of the revenue raisers over here. The local govt need the money too much.

  • > I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily
    > shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively
    > evaluating a program.

    Votes matter more than money.

  • In 25 years of watching these systems try to replace traffic cops, I've yet to read any independent data on whether there's a net increase in safety in using speed and red-light cameras.

    There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.

    That said,

    • by deimtee (762122)

      There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.

      Here in Aus, it is always the fault of the rear car. It doesn't matter if the car in front emergency braked for a butterfly, if you hit it, it's your fault.
      If the cops get called (mandatory if there are any injuries) there is a pretty good chance you'll end up with a dangerous driving charge as well as full liability for any damage.

  • Running a red light is indicative of not having enough time to notice that the light is changing. By extending the amount of time the yellow signal is on, the more likely a speeder will notice the light is changing.

    • Running red lights isn't actually a problem. The traffic light goes yellow and then it goes red. Depending on how drivers in your part of the world behave, people will pass the lights up to x seconds after the light goes yellow. That number x is different in different places, but it can be measured.

      What's dangerous is not running a red light, what's dangerous is passing the light when cars from the other direction are already entering the crossing. So what matters is not the time between yellow and red,
      • by dkf (304284)

        What's dangerous is not running a red light, what's dangerous is passing the light when cars from the other direction are already entering the crossing. So what matters is not the time between yellow and red, what matters is the time between yellow on my side and green on the other side.

        Plus the phasing for other directions might be different (e.g., a dedicated cross-traffic turn phase) or there might be a pedestrian-exclusive phase. (Some jurisdictions have them, others don't.) All you really know when you see a red light is that you're not supposed to be entering the junction at that point. That's even true if it is a junction you know well; a highway engineer might've just altered the sequence for all you know for sure. Cars are dangerous (if very convenient) and so should be driven car

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      Running a red light is indicative of not having enough time to notice that the light is changing. By extending the amount of time the yellow signal is on, the more likely a speeder will notice the light is changing.

      Problem #1: Yellow light lengths are actually determined by the posted speed. They are supposed to be calibrated to allow for this. In fact, this is exactly how cities got busted with this program, by manipulating the yellow light times to be shorter, thus increasing revenue, but technically making the roads less safe than they were before (which obviously they didn't care about).

      Problem #2: The assumption that a speeder will not put their foot through the floor if yellow light times are increased becaus

  • Here in Calgary, the cameras have two purposes. The first is a normal red light camera, the second is for speed on green. Basically, it's just like multinova except it's right at the intersections. So if you speed through the green light you will get the ticket.

    I wish we could get rid of the red light piece of it, but keep the speed camera. I figure that stopping people from speeding through intersections is a lot more useful than catching speeders along long stretches of road where there wasn't going to

  • by symbolset (646467) * on Saturday February 02, 2013 @07:29PM (#42774151) Journal

    Obviously they weren't getting the revenue to make it pay off. Courts are not free. No doubt city workers were tired of it too.

    Safety does not even enter into it.

  • Reach into your pocket and pull out some money.

    That's essentially what these unaccountable, accident invoking driver distractions were doing.

  • Quoth TFS:

    The data, in fact, does not really prove it.

    Where can I find a copy of that data? Without exception, the "studies" I've seen condemning red light cameras have been woefully biased and flawed. Even then, they often conclude that red light cameras "only" trade side impacts for rear impacts, which is actually very much a net win for safety, as the latter cause fewer and less-severe human injuries.

    Many of the studies contain irritating circular references back to a handful of cases where suspect yellow timing was supposedly employed to increa

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...