Has anyone ever done a study concerning the effect of traffic agents standing in the middle of a 4 way intersection, directing traffic?
When there are perfectly good traffic lights functioning above, the agent sometimes permits them to control, sometimes not, and the driver must watch the light and the hands of the agent to see what they are saying and to resolve conflicts. Does this not cause traffic accidents?
If there’s an officer in the intersection, he controls the traffic, not the light — and it’s also likely because traffic is near a dead stand-still. If you’re watching the light and not the officer, you’re doing it wrong.
Red light cameras are a prudent and necessary adjunct to traditional law enforcement for the sake of public safety. However, the incentive for jurisidctions to modify signal lengths to increase technical violations and enhance ticket revenue streams needs to be carefully monitored. Integral to this consideration is the business model whereby the red light camera vendor “shares” in infraction revenue; this is reprehensible and increases the moral hazard of sensor “refinements” to increase the violation rate.
They should also do a study on how many cars have been rear ended because the person at the light stopped short causing the driver in back to hit them. I did hear somewhere that the powers that be were supposed to make the yellow light last a few seconds longer to help remedy this situation as well.
Having watched so many drivers continue to run the red light I feel these are needed. If a driver stops for the red light and the driver behind them hits them then call it following to closely and write them a ticket. Too many people are in a hurry. It is an excuse to say people stop short and cause accidents when in reality it is people follow to closely and don’t give themselves time to stop. Read your driving manuals again and see the distance between cars that is needed. Next time you are at a light watch how many run the red on the left turn arrow. That needs to stop. I do agree the money for tickets should not be shared with private companies and the light timing needs to be monitored to stop abuse of the system by greedy local governments.
Wayne, I agree with you hold heartedly. I’ve almost been rear ended at stop lights because I have stopped at a yellow light, it didn’t matter how far the car was behind me, they thought I should have gone through, and they were not pleased that I had stopped short. What really chaps my mule too, are drivers who think they are above the law who constantly run through stop signs. I’ve almost been hit by these morons, too. And on a daily basis.
What this sounds like to me is that they made up the science to justify a machine that increases local municipal revenue. If anybody cares to listen, red light camera’s, good, bad or ugly, are a direct intrusion on your privacy. There are more camera’s taking your picture today than at anytime before. Reasons given..Red lights, security, traffic flow, weather,etc… however, for some reason, these camera’s show up in places that have no rhyme or reason for being there.I just think that perhaps there is more going on than the obvious…good, bad or ugly.
I appreciate that someone has noticed what I have also noticed. I am troubled, however, that out of eleven comments only one mentions it. This isn’t that the cameras are taking pictures of people running red lights. It is the fact that these cameras are high-quality, networked security cameras that can be used for any multitude of things at the will of their controllers.
This isn’t about the red light runners. I know that cameras in more than one city I frequent have caused me to be much more cautious with lights. This is about the bigger picture, the slow but steady proliferation of cameras (among other things) into our world; surveillance tools that are being installed daily with little-to-no resistance or even notice by John Q. Public.
In my opinion, this is about much more than abuse of a revenue stream (although that risk rings true with me as well). It is about violation of our rights. Not our right to run a red light, but our right to be able to live without a digital eye looking over our shoulder.
I would love to see cameras installed at all major intersections. Some people just don’t seem to think they need to obey basic traffic laws thereby putting everyone else into danger. For the once or twice that I might get busted running a yellow light…too bad for me. The certainty of a hefty fine will be enough to get people’s attention and make the streets safer for the rest of us. As for the fools who think this is a privacy issue…it’s not.
I don’t see any better options for stopping the constant red light running. So many people do it because they aren’t caught. There are not enought police to watch all of this. Red light cameras work and if you run the light you should be fined. Maybe enough fines go out and we can have a little more driver safety. I write this having just got back from lunch and watching three cars run the red arrow on their left turn with the last one on the phone without a clue why people were blowing their horns at her while they had the green light and she turned right in front of them all on a red arrow. There was no yellow or almost made it. She flat out went right through it. No tickets and how long before she hits someone?
What irks me is that in my city, they put up a redlight camera at an intersection with a separate right turn lane that had a yield sign for over 20 years, left the yield sign but said you had to stop first on the red light before proceeding. It is the highest income intersection for the city.
This is the type of immediate abuse we’re talking about. What’s worse is the “your signage confused me” defense has been obliterated by stupid, obnoxious sixteen-year-olds trying to get out of their sixth speeding ticket. Eventually the proponents will realize that some benefits just come with too high of a risk of abuse.
Perhaps you could raise this issue to your city council in order to have the signage corrected for clarity?
The IIHS study has been statistically debunked by numerous researchers, including those at the University of South Florida and the California DOT—
“The Oxnard red light camera study violates many basic principles of sound statistical public health research and lacks internal and external validity,” the Florida researchers concluded. “All red light camera investigations should be scrutinized for adherence to applied research methods since studies with greater adherence to quasi-experimental research designs have concluded red light cameras are associated with large increases in crashes and since special interest groups with a financial stake in red light camera use are actively working to influence public opinion and policy.”
Additionally, the overwhelming majority of studies have found that red light cameras increase accidents. The main researcher behind EVERY study supporting red light cameras, Richard Retting, was the first official in the US to propose red light cameras, yet he claims to be an ‘objective’ researcher in these studies.
Here’s one from the NHTSA-
A more complete analysis of fatal accidents performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that “large fatality declines tended to coincide with areas that had higher increases in rates of unemployment” (view report). This is the case because unemployment takes drivers off the road in peak travel times reducing the chances of an accident. Many of the hardest hit areas economically have turned to automated enforcement to increase revenue. Moreover, studies conducted by independent researchers examining actual accident reports have found that accidents and injuries tend to increase where cameras are used (view reports). This is one of the reasons the public has turned against cameras, a fact that the industry attempts to deny.
Red Light cameras are an assault on our privacy and our system of justice. Gone is the presumption of innocence. If the camera takes a picture of your vehicle and you are the registered owner, you are guilty.
Municipalities don’t give a damn about the supposed safety enhancements of these things. They care only about have another source of tax revenue into their coffers. And the fact that they don’t need a police officer there or in court, that’s just an extra bonus.
Now it’s red lights, soon it will be speeding infractions.
Has anyone ever done a study concerning the effect of traffic agents standing in the middle of a 4 way intersection, directing traffic?
When there are perfectly good traffic lights functioning above, the agent sometimes permits them to control, sometimes not, and the driver must watch the light and the hands of the agent to see what they are saying and to resolve conflicts. Does this not cause traffic accidents?
What is the point?
If there’s an officer in the intersection, he controls the traffic, not the light — and it’s also likely because traffic is near a dead stand-still. If you’re watching the light and not the officer, you’re doing it wrong.
Conspicuous by its absence is any discussion of the cost per life saved or how many non-fatal accidents they actually cause.
Red light cameras are a prudent and necessary adjunct to traditional law enforcement for the sake of public safety. However, the incentive for jurisidctions to modify signal lengths to increase technical violations and enhance ticket revenue streams needs to be carefully monitored. Integral to this consideration is the business model whereby the red light camera vendor “shares” in infraction revenue; this is reprehensible and increases the moral hazard of sensor “refinements” to increase the violation rate.
They should also do a study on how many cars have been rear ended because the person at the light stopped short causing the driver in back to hit them. I did hear somewhere that the powers that be were supposed to make the yellow light last a few seconds longer to help remedy this situation as well.
Having watched so many drivers continue to run the red light I feel these are needed. If a driver stops for the red light and the driver behind them hits them then call it following to closely and write them a ticket. Too many people are in a hurry. It is an excuse to say people stop short and cause accidents when in reality it is people follow to closely and don’t give themselves time to stop. Read your driving manuals again and see the distance between cars that is needed. Next time you are at a light watch how many run the red on the left turn arrow. That needs to stop. I do agree the money for tickets should not be shared with private companies and the light timing needs to be monitored to stop abuse of the system by greedy local governments.
Wayne, I agree with you hold heartedly. I’ve almost been rear ended at stop lights because I have stopped at a yellow light, it didn’t matter how far the car was behind me, they thought I should have gone through, and they were not pleased that I had stopped short. What really chaps my mule too, are drivers who think they are above the law who constantly run through stop signs. I’ve almost been hit by these morons, too. And on a daily basis.
What this sounds like to me is that they made up the science to justify a machine that increases local municipal revenue. If anybody cares to listen, red light camera’s, good, bad or ugly, are a direct intrusion on your privacy. There are more camera’s taking your picture today than at anytime before. Reasons given..Red lights, security, traffic flow, weather,etc… however, for some reason, these camera’s show up in places that have no rhyme or reason for being there.I just think that perhaps there is more going on than the obvious…good, bad or ugly.
I appreciate that someone has noticed what I have also noticed. I am troubled, however, that out of eleven comments only one mentions it. This isn’t that the cameras are taking pictures of people running red lights. It is the fact that these cameras are high-quality, networked security cameras that can be used for any multitude of things at the will of their controllers.
This isn’t about the red light runners. I know that cameras in more than one city I frequent have caused me to be much more cautious with lights. This is about the bigger picture, the slow but steady proliferation of cameras (among other things) into our world; surveillance tools that are being installed daily with little-to-no resistance or even notice by John Q. Public.
In my opinion, this is about much more than abuse of a revenue stream (although that risk rings true with me as well). It is about violation of our rights. Not our right to run a red light, but our right to be able to live without a digital eye looking over our shoulder.
Ya, and red light camera’s are also a revenue producer for the city.
I would love to see cameras installed at all major intersections. Some people just don’t seem to think they need to obey basic traffic laws thereby putting everyone else into danger. For the once or twice that I might get busted running a yellow light…too bad for me. The certainty of a hefty fine will be enough to get people’s attention and make the streets safer for the rest of us. As for the fools who think this is a privacy issue…it’s not.
I don’t see any better options for stopping the constant red light running. So many people do it because they aren’t caught. There are not enought police to watch all of this. Red light cameras work and if you run the light you should be fined. Maybe enough fines go out and we can have a little more driver safety. I write this having just got back from lunch and watching three cars run the red arrow on their left turn with the last one on the phone without a clue why people were blowing their horns at her while they had the green light and she turned right in front of them all on a red arrow. There was no yellow or almost made it. She flat out went right through it. No tickets and how long before she hits someone?
What irks me is that in my city, they put up a redlight camera at an intersection with a separate right turn lane that had a yield sign for over 20 years, left the yield sign but said you had to stop first on the red light before proceeding. It is the highest income intersection for the city.
This is the type of immediate abuse we’re talking about. What’s worse is the “your signage confused me” defense has been obliterated by stupid, obnoxious sixteen-year-olds trying to get out of their sixth speeding ticket. Eventually the proponents will realize that some benefits just come with too high of a risk of abuse.
Perhaps you could raise this issue to your city council in order to have the signage corrected for clarity?
The IIHS study has been statistically debunked by numerous researchers, including those at the University of South Florida and the California DOT—
“The Oxnard red light camera study violates many basic principles of sound statistical public health research and lacks internal and external validity,” the Florida researchers concluded. “All red light camera investigations should be scrutinized for adherence to applied research methods since studies with greater adherence to quasi-experimental research designs have concluded red light cameras are associated with large increases in crashes and since special interest groups with a financial stake in red light camera use are actively working to influence public opinion and policy.”
Additionally, the overwhelming majority of studies have found that red light cameras increase accidents. The main researcher behind EVERY study supporting red light cameras, Richard Retting, was the first official in the US to propose red light cameras, yet he claims to be an ‘objective’ researcher in these studies.
Here’s one from the NHTSA-
A more complete analysis of fatal accidents performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that “large fatality declines tended to coincide with areas that had higher increases in rates of unemployment” (view report). This is the case because unemployment takes drivers off the road in peak travel times reducing the chances of an accident. Many of the hardest hit areas economically have turned to automated enforcement to increase revenue. Moreover, studies conducted by independent researchers examining actual accident reports have found that accidents and injuries tend to increase where cameras are used (view reports). This is one of the reasons the public has turned against cameras, a fact that the industry attempts to deny.
Red Light cameras are an assault on our privacy and our system of justice. Gone is the presumption of innocence. If the camera takes a picture of your vehicle and you are the registered owner, you are guilty.
Municipalities don’t give a damn about the supposed safety enhancements of these things. They care only about have another source of tax revenue into their coffers. And the fact that they don’t need a police officer there or in court, that’s just an extra bonus.
Now it’s red lights, soon it will be speeding infractions.