Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety 285
An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica summaries a study by the Chicago Tribune (paywalled) that found red light cameras do not improve driver safety. "[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."
They also noted that the city chose to install many cameras at intersections where crashes were rare to begin with. Chicago has raised roughly $500 million from red light camera tickets since 2002. "[O]fficials recently admitted to the city inspector general that they had quietly dropped the threshold for what constitutes a red light camera ticket, allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers and $7.7 million in ticket revenue before the city agreed to change the threshold back.
They also noted that the city chose to install many cameras at intersections where crashes were rare to begin with. Chicago has raised roughly $500 million from red light camera tickets since 2002. "[O]fficials recently admitted to the city inspector general that they had quietly dropped the threshold for what constitutes a red light camera ticket, allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers and $7.7 million in ticket revenue before the city agreed to change the threshold back.
Study financed by (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Study financed by (Score:5, Informative)
the institute of No Shiat Sherlock.
It isn't really that obvious. There was an overall 5% increase in injury accidents at the intersections with cameras. But they did not mention the severity of the injuries. T-bone crashes (which were reduced) are likely to result in more severe injuries than rear-end collisions (which were increased). There were other complications: Most of the additional accidents occurred at intersections that were poorly chosen because they previously had few accidents. So it is possible that cameras improved safety at intersections with a history of accidents, and could improve safety overall if they are only installed at those intersections. Another issue is the yellow light duration. Longer yellows leads to fewer accidents, and some cities installing cameras also shorten the yellow light duration to increase revenue. It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied.
The study shows that cameras can increase accidents, but it doesn't show they always increase accidents. If they are used more intelligently, they could be a net benefit.
Re:Study financed by (Score:5, Informative)
Another issue is the yellow light duration. Longer yellows leads to fewer accidents, and some cities installing cameras also shorten the yellow light duration to increase revenue. It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied.
Actually, it's right in the summary:
[O]fficials recently admitted to the city inspector general that they had quietly dropped the threshold for what constitutes a red light camera ticket, allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers and $7.7 million in ticket revenue before the city agreed to change the threshold back.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the threshold for prosecution isn't the same as changing the actual duration of the yellow.
Re:Study financed by (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They changed the duration of the yellow light to under 3 seconds.
TFA does not say that. I did not read the original paywalled paper, but if it really says that, then that pretty much means the rest of the data is meaningless and the study is garbage. You cannot conclude that "cameras cause accidents" when a far more plausible explanation is "shorter yellow light durations cause accidents".
Re: (Score:2)
Click the link, it isn't a "paper" it's a newspaper, and the Tribune article isn't paywalled. (Or at least isn't immediately.)
The article is written as if the yellow-timing issue was something the newspaper had previously caught the city on, while the study is a new thing they've done. Ie, the city reverted the timing to normal before the Tribune commissioned the study. But I'm reading between the lines, it isn't clear, and the "study" isn't published (in the normal sense), so there's no way to know for sur
Re: (Score:3)
Any which way it's a crazy way to try to prevent accidents. Around here (BC) yellow lights are usually longer then 3 seconds depending on the road and average speed of traffic and red light camera has to catch you entering the intersection on a red light as you might have entered the intersection on green, perhaps to make a left and had to wait. As well many of the red light cameras are actually fakes, they have only a few actual cameras that they rotate into different intersections (all high accident zones
Re:Study financed by (Score:4, Interesting)
There have also been several other studies that show that the red light cams actually increase accident rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the threshold for prosecution isn't the same as changing the actual duration of the yellow.
Nor is it clearly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's right in the summary:
No. The summary says that they issued tickets in situations where the yellow light duration was below the federal minimum. But it does not say whether those durations were the same for the before-and-after data sets being compared.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied.
To which I replied:
Actually, it's right in the summary:
To which you say:
No. The summary says that they issued tickets in situations where the yellow light duration was below the federal minimum. But it does not say whether those durations were the same for the before-and-after data sets being compared.
(sigh)
before the city agreed to change the threshold back.
Before, the stoplights met the legal requirements. Then they didn't (after installing the cameras) to catch more people who didn't have even the legal minimum time to clear the intersection. After the city got caught, they, as per the article, "agreed to change the threshold back." This has been going on for a few years in various cities.
So, the OP was wrong to say "It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in
Re: Study financed by (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Study financed by (Score:5, Informative)
RIVER NORTH — Some of Chicago's yellow lights are too short, according to an administrative law judge who said he's thrown out "60 to 70 percent" of red-light camera tickets he's come across recently because of the discrepancy.
The city uses the state and federal standard of having yellow lights display for a minimum of three seconds at intersections. But an administrative law judge, who hears appeals from motorists ticketed by red-light cameras, said during a hearing this week that he has seen evidence that yellow times are slightly beneath that at some Chicago intersections with red-light cameras.
Over the objections of the city, Fagel was allowed to present his video evidence on two of the red-light tickets that he said showed yellow light times slightly under three seconds.
Judge Robert Sussman dismissed the two red-light camera tickets and then surprised the hearing room by saying the Department of Administrative Hearings was seeing a large volume of red-light camera violations that listed a yellow light time of under three seconds.
"We're having a big problem with these yellow lights," Sussman said. "Sixty to 70 percent are coming up under three seconds."
Sussman said he has routinely thrown out any ticket for which documentation shows the yellow light lasted less than three full seconds. And he said he will continue to do so until the timing is fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
The key part of ShanghaiBill's query was "in the intersections studied".
In the Tribune article, as in the summary, the comment about the change in the yellow-timing was a completely separate part of the article from that discussing the findings of their commissioned study. From the article I get the impression that the Tribune investigation which led to the reversal of the city's policy pre-dated the newspaper commissioning the study and therefore wasn't a confounding factor, however there's nothing in the
Re: (Score:2)
The practice of too-quick yellow lights was SOP for red-light cameras for years, because otherwise they would have failed to generate enough revenue to justify themselves.
None of this is new, it's been covered in the main-stream media before, Florida tried to do this state-wide and got caught a year and a half ago [wtsp.com]. Here's the map identifying the traps [wtsp.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Nice attempt to move the goalposts.
However, none of that was related to ShanghaiBill's query, which was whether the change in the yellow-timing coincided with the study. Something that neither the summary nor the Tribune article make clear (although the way the article is written suggests to me the reversion pre-dates the study.) Nor did anything you linked to.
You failed to read ShanghaiBill's comment properly, then went on a rant about him failing to read the summary. Just accept that you were wrong, apolo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it was ShangahiBill who attempted to move the goalposts. My original response was to his claim that " It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied." It's clear.
Even then it was just some interesting questions he raised. Probably not known until he goes through the Paywall. Not very likely that a consensus can be reached, because what are the metrics? Some might say increased safety is laees accidents, some may say loss of life, some may say insurance company payouts. Some may just want the ticket money.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw... [npr.org]
If you use less accidents as a metric, it is very difficult to defend the cameras. If less T-Bone accidents, you can. Mone
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. It's kind of hard to include statistics on intersections that have not been studied, and there are also often resource issues preventing the study of all intersections in a city.
Re: (Score:2)
"The key part of ShanghaiBill's query was "in the intersections studied"." Of course. It's kind of hard to include statistics on intersections that have not been studied, and there are also often resource issues preventing the study of all intersections in a city.
In the end, I think that human ability to be incredibly corrupt is more the demise of these cameras than anything else. I have no doubt that cameras can increase safety in intersections. I also khave no doubt that they will always be abused, both from the non tax revenue stream and from quarterly profit motives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you don't understand the term "change the threshold back."
You need to read the entire sentence. They are talking about a legal threshold for issuing a ticket. They are NOT talking the actual duration of the light.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do people insist on nitpicking
Because it is NOT nitpicking. It is a critical issue. If the yellow durations were actually changed, then everything else stated in the Tribune article is meaningless garbage. Changing the durations changes everything. You cannot conclude anything about the effect of cameras, without separating the camera effect from the effect of the signal changes.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is shit (not shiat), though, because THERE IS NO FEDERALLY MANDATED MINIMUM TIME FOR AN AMBER SIGNAL LIGHT! Why do people think there is??? There are lots and lots of recommendations, and most states follow them, but local traffic laws aren't covered by federal law, and shouldn't be unless a traffic light gets used on an interstate.
As a general rule, what was taught to the Civvies I knew (I was comp sci, the civivies were on the floor below us) when I was in college was that amber lights shoul
Re: (Score:2)
it could be part of the revenue - how many of those rear end crashes were because the tailing driver wasn't paying attention and trying to keep going, and how many because the driver in front fancied a slow crash that was someone else's fault to sue for "whiplash injury" compensation?
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't really that obvious. There was an overall 5% increase in injury accidents at the intersections with cameras. But they did not mention the severity of the injuries. T-bone crashes (which were reduced) are likely to result in more severe injuries than rear-end collisions (which were increased).
A few months back, NPR had an article about this matter, I think from the same study. It was fascinating listening to an insurance company rep expressing satisfaction that although there were more accidents, they were "safer" accidents.
And while yes, it is really nice that T-Bone accidents were reduced, I persoonally find it difficult to think how wonderful it is to be rear ended, end be pleased that some insurance company thought it was preferable. I don't consider an increase in accidents acceptable. It
Re: (Score:3)
And while yes, it is really nice that T-Bone accidents were reduced, I persoonally find it difficult to think how wonderful it is to be rear ended, end be pleased that some insurance company thought it was preferable. I don't consider an increase in accidents acceptable.
I agree. However....
It's like the only thing they count is th ebodies, not people who are suddenly High risk, and get dropped from insurance.
Under these circumstances, the person found at fault will almost always be the person who rear-ended the car in front. If the car in front of you is stopping to avoid a red light, and you haven't allowed adequate distance to stop so you are forced to rear-end them, guess what? You are already a "high-risk" tailgating driver.
(And that's regardless of the stupid and insane manipulation of yellows that should cause any public official involved in it to be put in prison.)
Tailgating c
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It was always about the revenue, safety was a smokescreen swallowed by the gullible
On the flipside, 80% of the people arguing against them really just want to be able to run red lights with impunity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
On the flipside, 80% of the people arguing against them really just want to be able to run red lights with impunity.
Indeed. A big problem with these cameras, is that they issue tickets to middle class white people. But a live cop will just pick on teenagers and blacks, and leave the rest of us alone.
Re:Study financed by (Score:5, Insightful)
What they are saying is there is a link between having fines as a percentage of income and having those fines actually have some real impact. Obviously the idea of a $100 fine to someone earning a million dollars a year is much like expecting a $1 fine having an impact on someone earning $10,000 per year. So for real impact and to reduce the number of motor vehicle impacts fines need to be a percentage of annual income so as to have a fair and equal impact on all people breaking the law.
Re:Study financed by (Score:4, Informative)
Distracted driver legislation
M.A.D.D.'s push for DUI BAC change below 0.01
All these make alarming claims about carnage on the roads requiring onerous legislation, but if you check the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stats you can see that driving is safer now than it has ever been. There is no need for these laws. There are less injuries and fatalities year after year despite more cars on the road and more total miles driven.
Your reasoning is: (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been trying to make driving safer.
Driving is now safer.
Laws to make driving safer were therefore hysterical and stupid.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People have been trying to make driving safer.
Driving is now safer.
Laws to make driving safer were therefore hysterical and stupid.
Nah, it's just that there needs to be a limit. MADD largely succeeded in their goal So far so good. Then they just switched to abolition. If we lowered the upper speed limit to 15 miles per hour, and made everyone wear helmets and 5 point seat belts there would be very few accidents, and we'd all be safer. But that pretty much is overreach.
Re: (Score:2)
You could make the same claims about texting and driving. Texting and driving has undoubtedly gone up yet accidents continue to fall. It's not clear that texting and driving is the scourge it's made out to be. I'm not arguing it's safe, but maybe it's less unsafe than it's made out to be.
Re: (Score:3)
i'd rather be rear ended vs t-boned any day... 50% of those tbones are going to hit the driver's side
Re: (Score:2)
Old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
We had them installed in Los Angeles despite no one wanting them outside of the city council.
They then installed them in places that didn't actually have accidents such as busy though safe intersections.
The result was actually an increase in accidents because everyone had to start driving dangerously to avoid the cameras.
This was brought to the attention of the city council and they basically ignored it. The accidents were higher. People were unhappy with them. We had one christmas where some group of people wearing santa outfits put big colorfully wrapped cardboard boxes over the speed cameras that said "merry christmas". No one liked these things.
Then after the systems had been in place for awhile and they did a finacial audit... they found the cameras weren't actually making any money because most of the tickets were getting thrown out of court by judges that also didn't like them.
THEN the city council took them down... roughly about a week after that was revealed the cameras were disconnected or gone.
Which really highlights from several angles what this was always about.
Money.
Safety has nothing to do with it. Nothing what so ever. It was money - period. That is all these things are about or have ever been about. Cash. End of story.
Re:Old news. (Score:4, Insightful)
The result was actually an increase in accidents because everyone had to start driving dangerously to avoid the cameras.
Nobody HAD to drive dangerously simply because the cameras were installed.
Otherwise I generally agree with you.
Re:Old news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually yes they did, due to the extra threat of photos people are more likely to slam on the brakes at the last second when it would be safer to continue through the intersection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
due to the extra threat of photos people are more likely to slam on the brakes at the last second when it would be safer to continue through the intersection.
If you are choosing between "slamming your brakes at the last second" or "running a red light" then you were driving unsafely.***
Further if you are "slamming your brakes at the last second" to avoid a ticket, AND you get rear ended as a result -- what was the guy behind you thinking? Sounds like he was driving even poorer than you were... because if y
Re:Old news. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are choosing between "slamming your brakes at the last second" or "running a red light" then you were driving unsafely.***
There is a significant correlation between installing the cameras and shortening the yellow. At the same time, even if the yellow was too short even before the cameras were installed, they increase the risk of accidents since people will no longer be willing to run the very beginning of the red (before traffic the other way starts moving).
Re: (Score:2)
The federal guidelines are too short for yellow lights. And if all it took to make things safer was to lengthen the yellow, why do we need to trade once accident for another? What kind of justification is that? "It's less severe an injury!"
Given the way people actually drive, why not just increase the yellow?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care what point you are trying to make, but when you start to victim blame, you lose credence.
What are you talking about? No one forced you to slam your brakes on at the last second. There's no victim here, there's no person forcing you into it. In order to be victimised you need to have someone making you a victim, and that person doesn't exist.
All OP is doing is blaming the person at fault - that is, the person who's taken longer than 4 seconds to make the decision to gently brake for a red light, when given plenty of warning by a yellow.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be even safer to drive the speed limit (or even below it if you have a heavy load) and not trying to change lanes near the point of no return.
Never ran a red light where it wasn't my own fault.
Re: (Score:2)
I can work on computers, missiles, and a lot of other high tech or crazy things, but I don't work on cars because I know little beyond theories on their mechanics.
Re: (Score:2)
They could just get tickets I guess. Not really reasonable though. Paying the city a fee, getting points on your license, etc just to drive the way they were driving before that was safer.
What the cameras force are sudden stops and accelerations. You can't avoid it. The cameras don't recognize Yellow lights the same way police officers recognize them. And as a result it creates a traffic hazard.
They were a shameless money grab that hurt everyone including the stupid cities that tried to impose them.
Re:Old news. (Score:4, Insightful)
They could just get tickets I guess.
While I don't care for the cameras I do live in a city with red light cameras. I've NEVER had any difficulty stopping safely; and I've never gotten a red light ticket.
As long as the city isn't screwing with the yellow light duration, if you were driving safely then red light cameras really don't affect you.
just to drive the way they were driving before that was safer.
Running red lights is not safe.
What the cameras force are sudden stops and accelerations. You can't avoid it.
Again, around here, that's just not the case. When the light turns yellow, people prepare to stop for the red. Unless they are moving at sufficient speed to enter the intersection while its still yellow. Its basic driving 101.
If red light cameras make you are slam on the brakes then you are driving poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
Running red lights is not safe.
Depends, I used to have a moped that didn't always get picked up on the light sensor. I could sit at a set of lights indefinitely until a bigger vehicle came along and triggered the lights for me. I learnt from that point to treat a red light the same as a stop sign. Use your brain, ensure traffic is clear then go.
Re:Old news. (Score:5, Informative)
They did if they were expecting a standard yellow light, then it changed red in 2.5 seconds instead of the federal minimum of 3 seconds and slammed on the brakes to avoid running the red light. And 3 seconds is the minimum. It needs to be even longer on fast roads.
Generally, the yellow light should last a bit more than 1 second per 10 miles per hour. A 45mph road should have a yellow light that lasts about 5 seconds. But it's not required to be 5 seconds. It can be as low as 3 seconds. And many cities got caught going below even that minimum requirement at intersections with cameras. So people who drive that road know they have to stop fast on a yellow even if they can't do it safely. They have to balance the will get a ticket or might get rear ended.
Re:Old news. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ticket: I have to pay.
Rear ended: His insurance will pay for it.
The choice is obvious. Fuck safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Ticket: I have to pay. Rear ended: His insurance will pay for it.
The choice is obvious. Fuck safety.
I'll take a few hundred dollar penalty than be forced to deal with the problems of whiplash for the rest of my life...
Re:Old news. (Score:4, Interesting)
So people who drive that road know they have to stop fast on a yellow even if they can't do it safely.
Ticket: I have to pay.
Rear ended: His insurance will pay for it.
The choice is obvious. Fuck safety.
I think both of you don't understand what it means to stop safely. Hint: It NEVER involves someone behind you. Stopping safely means you pull up before the light and don't end up stopped in the middle of an intersection. You can't stop safely at yellow if it switches to yellow and you're 2m from the intersection doing 40, you simply will end up at the very least in the intersection. But there is absolutely no reason why you can't try if you have the stopping distance.
If at any point you're rear ended (doesn't matter if there's a 40 year old truck behind you, and you're driving a Lotus Super 7 with seemingly unlimited grip and a 2m stopping distance), the person who is behind you was driving unsafely all along.
No one is fucking safety, at the worst you're calling out the douchbag tailgater on his shithouse driving by hitting him in the insurance.
Not so much (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All you've done is argue that its not the presence of red light cameras causing accidents; its the screwing around with the yellow timing that is.
Screwing around with the yellow durations -- that leads to an unsafe intersection.
Nobody has to drive poorly if red light cameras are installed and the intersection is setup properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my Lord. They screwed with the yellow light durations to increase the fines issued by the cameras. Without the cameras, nobody would have messed with the timings of the traffic signals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had them installed in Los Angeles despite no one wanting them outside of the city council.
They then installed them in places that didn't actually have accidents such as busy though safe intersections.
The result was actually an increase in accidents because everyone had to start driving dangerously to avoid the cameras.
This was brought to the attention of the city council and they basically ignored it. The accidents were higher. People were unhappy with them. We had one christmas where some group of people wearing santa outfits put big colorfully wrapped cardboard boxes over the speed cameras that said "merry christmas". No one liked these things.
Then after the systems had been in place for awhile and they did a finacial audit... they found the cameras weren't actually making any money because most of the tickets were getting thrown out of court by judges that also didn't like them.
THEN the city council took them down... roughly about a week after that was revealed the cameras were disconnected or gone.
Which really highlights from several angles what this was always about.
Money.
Safety has nothing to do with it. Nothing what so ever. It was money - period. That is all these things are about or have ever been about. Cash. End of story.
How exactly do you drive more dangerously because of a red light camera???
Re: (Score:3)
Because I will slam the brakes to stop. NO matter what. No matter how fast I am. No matter how close the person behind me is. No matter whether I even KNOW that there will be an accident. I will stop instead of running the risk of entering the intersection on a red light. If I get rear ended, his insurance will pay. If I get a ticket, I have to pay.
Safety? It's about money. On BOTH ends of the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that is either your bad driving habits or yellow lights that change to fast. While I agree those cameras are nothing more than revenue raising, if they are causing more accidents then there is another problem that needs addressing.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, thankfully I live in a country where it is virtually impossible to get into the predicament due to the special way our traffic lights work. You know 5 seconds before your green light goes to yellow that it's about to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, thankfully I live in a country where it is virtually impossible to get into the predicament due to the special way our traffic lights work. You know 5 seconds before your green light goes to yellow that it's about to happen.
It's been well-demonstrated that some cities adjusted the yellows downwards. That's not a problem inherent to red light cameras, but there's no other "good" reason to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I have on more than one occasion. Funny enough, never in front of a traffic light.
I don't know about your country, in mine it's easy: You rear end someone, you're guilty. Period. There is no good explanation you could possibly give why you couldn't keep enough distance that you had enough time to react and stop your vehicle before slamming into another one.
I know exactly one case that didn't end like this, and only because the rear-ending car could PROVE that the other one was slamming into him in
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there's one exception. If a driver slams on his or her brakes right after making a sudden lane change into your lane, then the accident is almost always the fault of the driver in front. However, without a dashboard camera,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for him he w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly do you drive more dangerously because of a red light camera???
Let me give you a hing..
A yellow — or amber — light means the red light is about to appear. You must stop if you can do so safely; otherwise, go with caution.
Knowing the yellow has been shorted to make sure they get fines, which would i choose?
- Sail into the light and risk a ticket
- slam on my brakes and have the guy behind rear-end me?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you drive more dangerously because of a red light camera???
Instead of running a red light when the driver didn't see the yellow in time, the driver is tempted to pull a sudden stop that leads to brake damage and increases the risk of a following driver not assessing the scene fast enough leading to a rear-end collision, which pushes the car into the red light zone.
I dated a girl in Syracuse in 2000 where we were kissing in front of as many cameras as possible, and noticed it was not as complete a record as a constant DVR at that time. Such a system was proposed but rejected. Police supported us and we did get a photo taken by a red light camera, but that trick was hard to pull off. (I ended up not getting a fine, the Syracuse court system was in on the joke.)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone that drives finds the answer to be self evident.
I'm shocked! (Score:2)
SHOCKED! SHOCKED!
I'm sure that cutting the yellow light times didn't help.
Rejected in Ohio! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the Ohio with the Republican Governor and the Republican dominated legislature? Good to know.
Ordinarily the left-of-centers around here have no trouble making the connection between higher government revenue and greater public safety. All they're doing in Chicago is providing themselves the means to fund their Government [1] by punishing law breakers. Beyond that they are discouraging the use of climate wrecking automobiles. Seems like a win all the way around.
Anyhow, if you really want to kill
San Diego (Score:4, Informative)
I live in San Diego, some of the time, and similar results were posted here, too. The increase in rear-end collisions from people slamming on the brakes negates any benefit from reduced T-bones.
San Diego also reduced yellow light times, sometimes to below the legal limit, in order to boost revenue.
A judge looked at the program in 2001, said, "That's bullshit", and banned it for a year, and then the government finally ended it on its own in 2013.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could simply increase the penalties for tailgating and solve both the rear-ending and t-boning at the same time.
Rear-ending is not a symptom if red light cameras, it's a symptom of idiot drivers not following the road rules and not leaving enough space to stop from the person in front.
Red Light Cameras (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chicago: Bankruptcy Soon (Score:2)
You can't do this Chicago... you can't break a federal law to issue tickets in the invalid yellow light zone. What went wrong? Why are you money grubbing? Maybe its time to move the CMX!
Is this a bad thing? (Score:3)
Most cars I've driven have a lot more space behind me & in front than they do to either side.
If I you could, where would you choose to get hit?
If they really wanted to make money ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Tailgaters cause rear end crashes (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care if you hit a brick wall. if you get rear ended, the guy was too close to begin with. That's what the insurance companies say, and I agree.
Re:Tailgaters cause rear end crashes (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, the tailgater is always wrong, without exception. You keep a safe distance and you won't hit anything, simple law of physics. I do have the right to avoid blowing the light. If you rear end me, screw you. You were too damn close or driving too fast! I am not responsible for the people behind me in any way. I always do my best to allow them to pass if they are so inclined. You don't have to like it. Just accept it and move along.
Nothing beats poor driving. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rear-ending means not keeping enough distance with the car in front of you. It's that simple. Plus of course keeping your eyes on the road and concentrating on the task ahead.
Running a red light causes accidents, again poor driving skills. Yes I know the argument "to improve ticket revenue, yellow is shortened" - that argument fails for the period BEFORE the red light cameras are installed, i.e. the time that running red lights was rampant causing numerous accidents, which these red light cameras actually have reduced according to this very article.
As long as people don't understand basic road rules and safety, these accidents will continue to happen. As long as people try to shave seconds of their commute by pushing, speeding and running red lights (instead of stopping when it's yellow), accidents will continue to happen.
Nothing beats poor driving.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Nothing beats poor driving.
Actually good traffic engineering does beat poor driving.
It may not beat it 100% of the time, but nothing in life is ever 100%.
Getting all righteous about bad drivers might give you the warm fuzzies, but it doesn't save lives.
Good traffic engineering does save lives.
Details matter (Score:5, Informative)
The original red-light camera trial was in Scottsdale Arizona. The city farmed out the study to a university research group, and the cameras were installed at a random selection of the worst red-light-accident [1] intersections. The trial was publicized and ran for several years. The timing of the lights was not changed.
The conclusion of the trial was that the cameras reduced both accidents and injuries. Scottsdale then ran the cameras for years with general public approval, in part because the city has some pretty rational traffic ordinances (like raising the speed limit if most people are going faster anyway) and an open set of books on the program.
The cities that treat red-light violations as a revenue source and especially those that cut yellow times to increase red violations have only themselves to blame for poisoning public opinion. If anything, cameras should be paired with longer yellow times.
Scottsdale is strange that way. They also did studies that showed that traffic flows better and reduces accidents by having left turn after green rather than before. Those results have been mostly ignored by other cities.
PS: I've seen some of the footage from the cameras, by the way -- one truly amazing one of a guy who totally spaced and drove right through an intersection well after cross-traffic was flowing but amazingly managed to miss all of it. Hard to believe.
[1] Skip the joke. It's ancient.
meh (Score:3)
Do the ppl who write this shit have any idea of the difference in those two types of crashes?
Its like saying 'Loss of limbs was down 15%, but bruising is up 18%",
Being T Boned is fucking horrific, I've seen it happen twice, both times I was fucking surprised we didn't have ppl die, I've seen maybe 30 Tail to nose crashes at lights, worst one i was surprised that someone *was* injured.
Just like speed traps (Score:4, Insightful)
They always seem to put speed traps where it's easy to catch speeders versus where speed control would improve safety, such as places with high levels of speed related accidents.
The latter are often difficult to place speed traps or don't offer good cover for squad cars and the former are often places where it's easy to go faster or where the speed limits are artificially low.
no (Score:2)
ridiculously bad summary (Score:4, Interesting)
"[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."
So the article says rear-end went up 22% and T-bone went down 47%. You have to be suspicious whenever you see a news article that says x went down by y%.
per cent of what? What were the base numbers?
Here's some example situations to show why I say that.
suppose before red light camera we had 100 rear-end crashes and 10,000 t-bone crashes at the intersection (all with injuries)
suppose after red light, we have 122 rear-end crashes and 5,300 t-bone crashes. That's 22% rear-end up and 47% t-bone down
But, the total number of injuries dropped 4,678. That's good isn't it? Redlight cameras must be great!
Or, suppose this:
before red-light camera, 10,000 rear-end and 100 t-bone w/injury
after red-light camera: 12,200 rear-end and 53 t-bone w/injury again, 22% increase in rear-end and 46% decrease in t-bone.
so we had an increase of 2,153 injuries total. Oh my, red-light cameras are killers, aren't they?
I used a wide disparity in the numbers to make my point: you cannot make a useful comparison between percent changes in numbers of two different measurements without knowing the base numbers. That is covered in your freshman "Lying with Statistics 101" class.
So, I read the article in the Tribune (it's free if you give them your email address and live out-of-zone)
If you read the Tribune article (and the accompanied "How the Red Light Camera Study was Done" you may come away with a quite different view than the slashdot summary or the ArsTechnica summary. The Tribune article is not as ridiculous as the slashdot summary.
The article does indeed have some raw numbers:
Quoted from the Tribune:
"In raw numbers at the 90 intersections included in the study, the researchers concluded the cameras prevented as many as 76 right-angle crashes and caused about 54 more rear-end injury crashes. The study said that without the red light cameras about 501 angle crashes would have occurred and only 425 were reported. It also said that there were 296 rear-end injury crashes, and there would have been only 242 had the cameras never been installed."
I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash.
If you give me a choice between trading 76 t-bones crashes for 54 rear-end crashes, I'd take those numbers. As many other posters have observed, t-bone crashes are much more likely to result in serious injuries and deaths than rear-enders.
The two Tribune articles also covers some of the crookedness associated with Chicago's use of the cameras. They are both a good read and covers a lot of why you should be careful about these numbers and problems associated with the data.
"summaries" is not a verb (Score:2)
Cover Up (Score:2)
Less fatalities? (Score:3)
Earlier studies consistently showed red light cameras resulted in less fatalities. And thus more injuries. I'm not convinced.
Furthermore, in rear-end collisions both parties are somewhat guilty. In T-bone crashes, typically only the one running the red light was clearly guilty. Therefore red light cameras result in a distribution of injuries that's fairer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... they replaced the running a red light problem with sudden stops and rear end incidents. No safety improvement, just a better chance of issuing fines. Seems like this kind of ticket deserves some SCotUS rulings.
Re: (Score:3)