Red-Light Cameras Just Don’t Work
Red-light cameras are designed to take a picture of a car’s license plate if the driver runs a red light. These cameras are popping up in city after city as officials theorize that if drivers know they’re being watched, they’ll be less likely to run the lights. But do they work? Or is it just another way to increase city revenue from traffic tickets.
Well, according to study after study, rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and therefore, raise insurance premiums. In fact, the only studies that have shown any benefit to red-light cameras were either done by the IIHS…the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or researchers funded by them. How very strange, don’t you think?
The most recent study revealing the truth about the cameras was done by researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health.
“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health. “Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections.”
Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are associated with increases in crashes. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs. The only studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained “major research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were always conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras since insurance companies can profit from red-light cameras by way of higher premiums due to increased crashes and citations.
Apparently, the findings have been known for some time. A 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives reported that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report came to the same conclusions that all of the other valid studies have, that red-light cameras are associated with increased crashes and that the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running. That’s right, the state actually tampers with the yellow light settings to make them shorter, and more likely to turn red as you’re driving through them.
In fact, six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. Those local governments have completely ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.
The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, and Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information from reports from around the country. This isn’t the first time traffic cameras have been questioned as to their effectiveness in preventing accidents. In one case, the local government was forced to issue refunds by more than $1 million to motorists who were issued tickets for running red lights.
Great example of our government at work.
Heres the high brow economists bit:
Under our current democratic government, good laws (laws that benefit everyone) are a “public good” (their “producers” don’t receive enough of their value to make it worth the effort) and thus are under-provided; while bad laws (laws that benefit special interests at the expense of everyone else) are a “private good” (their “producers” receive most of their value) and thus over-provided. Just something to think about.
In my hometown in Virginia, there’s a huge road called Independence Blvd that most of the traffic from the naval base has to travel on to get home. Because naval base traffic is thicker then NYC traffic [seriously, I shit you not], when Virginia Beach began getting stoplight cameras, Independence Blvd was naturally one of the first recipients. About a year after the cameras were installed, there was a huge article in the paper about the huge number of accidents resulting from people frantically trying to avoid ticket-by-camera. It was such a major problem, most of the cameras were disabled. The only function they serve now is to scare the stuffing out of freshly-licensed teenagers who aren’t aware they don’t work.
Words by Suzanne Denbow on August 18, 2008 at 9:32 pm | #
They’re in the process of installing what looks to be about 30 cameras (some may be flashes) about 3 blocks from my house. This is NOT an accident riddled intersection, but it is very busy, and the intersection leads directly into a state college, so it gets a LOT of traffic. 4 lanes in all directions. (2 coming and 2 going each) This is my way to work, which I will now be avoiding and adding another mile to my daily trip.
They will not be getting $350 from me for rolling through a yellow, and I will not SLAM on the brakes to avoid a ticket.
Words by Silence7 on August 20, 2008 at 4:32 am | #
Lights should also have timers on them, just like pedestrian timers. Then cars can dictate how much time they have and decide w heater to coast in or continue at current speed.
Words by Richard on August 20, 2008 at 12:41 pm | #
I’m not really sure how red light cameras increase crashes, but it is an interesting theory. In general, people just need to give more space and not tailgate!
Words by Graduation Sash on August 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm | #
This article is complete bullshit. Accidents increase INITIALLY from idiots like hte editors of this site who used to blow through intersections on Red now realizing that they have to stop and getting rear ended. However, once people get used to them, virtually ALL studies have shown they they decrease after a couple months. And the accidents are smaller than before.
But a site like ridelust can’t be bothered with giving FULL facts when they have their own agenda to push.
Words by TH on August 20, 2008 at 2:15 pm | #
I agree with TH on this one. Don’t blame the camera. If people are slamming on their brakes to avoid a camera ticket that means they’re travelling too fast in the first place, not paying close enough attention, or both.
If people actually obeyed the law, we wouldn’t need the cameras. And if the law is no good, then it should be changed.
People always seem to get upset when a law that they ignore is enforced. Imagine the outrage if the posted speed limit could actually be enforced perfectly by technology…
Words by robmo on August 20, 2008 at 2:36 pm | #
How to avoid accidents:
1) Drive defensively
2) Obey all traffic signs, speed limits and signals
If everyone did that, we wouldn’t need traffic light cameras. But, since most drivers are jerks, we do need them.
The alternative is to hire a traffic cop for every intersection in every city/town, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Municipalities don’t have that kind of money…so, in the interest of public safety, traffic light cameras have come into being.
For you red light camera haters, just do your part to obey the law and encourage everyone do the same.
Words by Mike in Santa Fe on August 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm | #
Hi TH
I wrote the article. I took all the studies I could find into account. If you know of some that I missed, I would love to see them.
Show me where you’re getting your facts, including all the studies
that contradict the ones that I posted about, and I’ll print a full retraction and give you credit by name.
I await your response.
Thanks
Vito Rispo
Words by Vito Rispo on August 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm | #
Why would more crashes, and more expensive crashes, for which the insurance companies have to pay, be good for them? Answer: it wouldn’t.
Words by TPR on August 20, 2008 at 2:55 pm | #
If they provide a moving violation ticket, then they are illegal in most states. There has to be an officer who whitnesses the crime (typically).
On average, you have about one second for every ten miles an hour, eg. 40 MPH speed limit = 4 seconds of yellow light, and the camera should not take the picture if the light is yellow.
In most cases, if they cannot prove it is you, they cannot ticket you.
source:
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/
These lights cannot take the road conditions into account.
They provide a blinding light that is very destracting and the most probable cause of accidents, believe me, they suck.
These lights are easily defeted with IR technology.
source:
http://www.videojug.com/film/make-your-own-james-bond-license-plates-4
Words by Samhuk on August 20, 2008 at 3:01 pm | #
@TH
Here is a link to an article from 2005. Seeing as it is from the Washington Post, I imagine it is good source material to contradict you statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html
Words by Samhuk on August 20, 2008 at 3:09 pm | #
How would more crashes, and more expensive crashes, for which the insurance companies have to pay, be good for them? Answer: it wouldn’t.
Words by TPR on August 20, 2008 at 3:10 pm | #
There are also other studies that have been done which show that increasing the yellow light time accomplishes what the cities are supposedly trying to do with red light cameras (decrease red light runners and accidents). Of course there’s no revenue in that.
Words by Don on August 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm | #
Uhh… what are you talking about? One study versus 20…
http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/html/research.htm
A 2006 study of the red light camera program in Garland, Texas, found that crashes caused by red light runners decreased by 56 percent at intersections with cameras; crashes at intersections without cameras decreased by 38 percent. Injuries at the locations with cameras decreased by 27 percent, from 95 to 69 injuries.
Words by Jason on August 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm | #
Does not matter if they work or not, follow the money, stupid, it is just another way of taxing. The cities who install them get a great powerpoint slide show from the manufacturer, and the last slide just has $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ all over it, FREE MONEY!!! Also many attorneys have taken cities to court for changing the interval of yellow to red by a few seconds to get even more dangerous red light runners off the road. A local intersection I must use every day is equipped with just such a camera and now I pull over and stop until it goes red then proceed to the light because it is at the top of a hill and you can’t tell how long it has been green, pretty sneaky bastards. Vote them out!!!!
Words by Maser Man on August 20, 2008 at 3:24 pm | #
I am a fan of Red Light cameras. It is ridiculous here in Orlando the amount of red lights that get run. The test cameras at 5 intersection recorded over 10000 infractions a day. Every red light cycle in every direction of every test intersection was run by at least 3 vehicles.
Part of the problem here is because of the heat, and the low paid leos, they would rather sit in their air conditioned cruisers then get out in the heat and do their jobs.
It is common knowledge here that red light running is unenforced so everyone does it.
The cameras will stop the flagrant disrespect for the traffic laws.
The law maker preach safety as the motivation, but the true motivation is revenue.
Did you know insurance companies check your credit? The better your credit the cheaper your insurance. The insurance companies studies have shown that people that do not pay their bills, are also bad drivers.
Most people that don’t pay their bills on time can’t. Because they are poor.
So just like the lotto, this is a way to get the poor to pay there share of the taxes. If you are poor and live in HUD housing, you don’t pay any property tax. So in a way your kids go to school for free. The homeowners pay the taxes.
The lotto was created to get poor people to pay their share. And it works. The lotto money in Florida goes to the schools, and most of this money comes from the poor.
Bad Drivers = Bad Credit = No Mortgage = No Property Tax Paid.
They are going to pay know. All the traffic cams going up in Orlando are going on Da ‘hood.
Words by Greg on August 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm | #
“Lights should also have timers on them, just like pedestrian timers. Then cars can dictate how much time they have and decide w heater to coast in or continue at current speed.”
Yeah real smart, so the driver can see he has 5 seconds to travel the 100 yards left to the light and speeds up to make it. That would mean safer travel, right? How about we put dragster lights too so we know before the light turns green? Idiot.
You are brilliant. Didn’t I just try to pass you as you talked on the cell phone with your left blinker on as you went 55 in the far left lane?
Grow a brain, moron.
Words by Not As Dumb As This Guy on August 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm | #
It doesn’t surprise me in the least. I’ve gotten nicked a few times by red light cameras, and I am certain they have tinkered with the timing. And on each of those occasions, at least one if not more cars followed me through the intersection. If I had attempted to stop, I would have been rear-ended, possibly multiple times. The area in question (Rockville MD), has had the cameras for over a year now, so we’re well past TH’s ‘couple months’. Sometimes you just don’t have time to stop - that’s why we need real officers enforcing traffic laws so they can exercise reasonable judgement.
Words by Justin on August 20, 2008 at 3:36 pm | #
Does anyone else have a problem with the out-sourcing of law enforcement for profit, which is what these red light cameras represent?
Police Departments should never be a revenue stream for a community.
Words by bigduke on August 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm | #
HEY! I’m from Union City, CA. I HATE those things. I seriously have developed a fear of being caught by one of these cameras! When I approach a light that has been green I instantly get anxious and either pick up speed to make sure i make it or just make a turn instead. Sometimes I believe its actually safer to run an orange light if you have to stop suddenly but I guess I shouldn’t be thinking, or making my own judgement about whats safest for me.
Words by G- on August 20, 2008 at 4:03 pm | #
I agree, but I believe you miss the benefit.
Rear end crashes are far less fatal than T-bone crashes. I’d agree that the NUMBER of accidents may rise, but the FATALITIES would fall. Personally, I’d much rather get hit from behind (where vehicles are engineered with much more protection) than get hit from the side in the intersection, where there’s only a few inches between me and the car going 40 miles per hour.
Words by Jeremy Alton on August 20, 2008 at 4:03 pm | #
You don’t get a ticket if you are in the intersection when the light turns red. You only get a ticket if you enter the intersection if the light is red.
Back in 2005 I was rear ended as I stopped for a red light. The guy claimed his brakes were shot. And his insurance had just lapsed. Luckily he eventually paid me the $900 in damage he caused, although it took a year of my having to call him every week.
Words by GSH on August 20, 2008 at 4:06 pm | #
This is a interesting article, but I agree with the previous person that the source (”Ride-Lust) cant be held as credible. I find it interesting you said that a North Carolina study said crashes increased…..I have conducted such a study, and found that crashes did decrease. The only study flaw I had was that I needed more data in the after period. I am in the process of updating that study and have found that crashes have leveled back off (total, rear-end, and angle) to that of the before period, but that collision severities did seem to decrease over time. I also think it is hillarious that the person that wrote this article shows a picture of a video detection camera (probably ‘Opticon’ or ‘Autoscope’), which has nothing to do with red light cameras, but has stated that they have looked into all credible resources. How can someone claim to understand what they are reading about red light cameras that doesnt even know what one looks like!
Words by Unknown on August 20, 2008 at 4:12 pm | #
Looking forward to the “full facts” from HT. Don’t let us down.
Red light cameras are nothing but a huge tax on motorists. Research how much money villages are making from these cameras.
Personally, I don’t appreciate having to pay $100 because some machine took my picture, sent it to some employee who works for the camera company, who then decides to send my information to the police because he thinks I look guilty. Cop looks at the picture, says “there he is, must be guilty” and mails off a $100 fine.
Go to court and contest it, and the judge simply punches it up on her computer, asks if that is your car, and finds you guilty. There is no discussion to be had.
That’s the process in a nutshell, and the village makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from it every year.
Words by nordic on August 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm | #
@Jason
About Garland TX. Why report only the one side of the story? Your quote clearly states a difference in red light runner accidents, but what about rear end accidents? Have they gone up or down? If they have gone up, the cameras are not doing the job in preventing accidents, even if they help with red light runners. Fatalities aside, ( there is an increase in rear end accident fatalities after red light cameras in some areas http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/288.asp ), an accident is an accident. There is no point in stopping one only to cause another.
Words by Samhuk on August 20, 2008 at 5:09 pm | #
It’s simple really: guilty until proven innocent is a principle enshrined in the Constitution. This shifts the burned of proof on the accused, as a picture could be taken completely out of context (how about a picture of the driver sitting at a red light due to a camera malfunction)?
This is temporary IMO - we’ll see a class action lawsuit (justifiably so) soon enough and that will be the end of the revenue zones.
Words by Eric Gonzalez on August 20, 2008 at 5:20 pm | #
@Jeremy Alton - So you’re suggesting we should knowingly increase the number of non fatal traffic collisions because it *might*, just might drop fatalities?
Seriously?
Words by Eric Gonzalez on August 20, 2008 at 5:24 pm | #
I live in Chattanooga, TN, and yes what they say about shortening the yellow lights is very true
Words by Seth on August 20, 2008 at 5:33 pm | #
It’s a pity this only refers to US, Australia have had them for over a decade in operation and there are a lot more studies avaialble than what has been detailed above, and in many countries. OK, red light cameras don’t overly reduce the number of people running the red light. They do bring in large revenues to the councils/states as a new form of income, and the cameras get great shots of people going through red lights and the opposing trucks going through green lights in the other direction. Some of them are faulty and take photo’s when they shouldn’t and they say they are working normally and the driver(s) have to take the government to court to prove otherwise. In Australia we also have a points system, collected for infringments, so running a red light would be 3 points from your lot, and a total of 10 points in a year and your license is suspended. In the overall picture, then repeat offenders are removed from driving on the road. However, If people stopped using mobiles, smacking kids, ignoring the road situation and driving drunk in the first place, then a few ‘accidents’ would be minor compared to the ’stupids’ that cause crashes.
Words by Warren on August 20, 2008 at 5:56 pm | #
Follow the money. Insurance companies compete on rates, but once you get a ticket for speeding or running a light, they can triple your rate and you cannot go to another company. That is why they support cameras and give away radar guns.
Words by Sarasota John on August 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm | #
I Like Turtles!~
Words by Oregon Turtle Boy on August 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm | #
If the vehicle T-boning you is traveling 40mph while you’re running a red light then they themselves are most likely braking the law. You shouldn’t be accelerating that quickly, and even then, that should only happen if you were actually running a red light, and as stated above, cities have been caught giving people tickets for going through yellow lights, which is not illegal.
Personally, I agree that they shouldn’t be used in place of a human being. The traffic laws are in place to keep people safe and are situation dependent. An officer can technically pull you over and give you a ticket for going the speed limit in adverse conditions. In the end it all comes down to protecting the safety of yourself and others, and cameras can’t make judgements on these things. If they instead or also took video footage which could be reviewed by human beings then I would find them reasonable as long as each and every one was reviewed by a human being. If they can pay officers to sit out on the streets to watch for speeders they can also pay people to watch those records, since overall it SHOULD cost less.
Words by BD on August 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm | #
Death to American colonial furniture!
Words by irspariah on August 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm | #
Maybe if people did not tailgate and speed, we wouldn’t have to worry about stopping abruptly at a light. If you are approaching a light and you fear you have to stop to abruptly, you are probably speeding. If you get nailed in the rear, then the person behind you is tailgating. There is nothing wrong with these cameras as long as city’s don’t decrease yellow light times just to make profits. I see people running red lights every time I am on the road and I would like to see these people caught as running red lights is dangerous. Also, a yellow light doesn’t mean you have plenty of time as most people seem to think, it means if you can stop you should. For some reason everybody wants to complain about law enforcement enforcing laws. Speed limits, lights, traffic laws, they are there for our protection yet nobody pays attention to these laws. If people did, we wouldn’t need these cameras.
Words by David Hunter on August 20, 2008 at 6:58 pm | #
““Lights should also have timers on them, just like pedestrian timers. Then cars can dictate how much time they have and decide w heater to coast in or continue at current speed.”
Yeah real smart, so the driver can see he has 5 seconds to travel the 100 yards left to the light and speeds up to make it. That would mean safer travel, right? How about we put dragster lights too so we know before the light turns green? Idiot.
You are brilliant. Didn’t I just try to pass you as you talked on the cell phone with your left blinker on as you went 55 in the far left lane?
Grow a brain, moron.”
Grow a brain? heh….
Anyway in response to his theory on timers. I find that pedestrian timers actually help me gauge whether to slow down or continue coasting if I have time. But then again I’m a law abiding citizen. I do see that the timers could be used for people in a hurry and misused. I think it would benefit people who abide by the law, in that they won’t accidentally run a light.
Judging by the comments of idiot and moron you made, I wonder if you are one of those road rage type people, who do speed up to get through lights to get to the next red one. You get all heated up from a suggestion, I’d hate to see you behind a wheel! Yikes.
Words by fthatnoise on August 20, 2008 at 7:24 pm | #
For Virginia, the reason that they stopped using the intersection cameras actually had to do with a Virginia law which requires citations to be made in person, which defeats the purpose of using an automated traffic ticketing system. They did also a major traffic study, and found that while accidents caused by people running the red lights decreased in some cases (such as Holland Rd & Rosemont Rd intersection), they increased in the form of rear-end collisions (like in the case of Independence Blvd and Va Beach Blvd). So, the state basically decided to stop funding on them and prohibit their use unless a city or jurisdiction got a special exception, which most have not. I believe Arlington may be the one area that still has them in use in Virginia, but the ones installed do appear to still be in place, even if not in use.
Link to a summary of the study, including the details about Virginia’s citation requirements:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=117
Words by KBP on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 pm | #
Heh, I always though our yellows were short. I live in Union City, CA, and my mom recently got a red light flash ticket. It wasn’t even for running the red! Apparently, she was going “too fast to come to a full stop” to take a right turn on red, better known as a california roll. The flashes went off before she even turned/crossed into the intersection! She came to a full stop, albeit a hard one, then went. City isn’t hearing it.
Ticket is $381. Another one for the City……
Words by Burney on August 20, 2008 at 8:09 pm | #
1) Picture in article is not of a red light camera, but a camera used to detect traffic as a replacement to the ground loops being cut into the pavement.
2) It doesn’t matter if the increased rear end accidents are caused by idiots or not. You’ve increased the accidents. Adding an extra second to the yellow light or extra second prior to switching lights reduces accidents. Increasing safety was the goal. Right?
3) As the article pointed out many cities were caught with their hand in the cookie jar lowering the timing of the yellow below state recommend levels, and sometimes below to laws of physics. Once yellows were brought up to the state mimimum accidents declined as did ticket revenue. Dallas decided to keep its cameras even after they became unprofitable, otherwise the backlash from the citizenry would have been explosive.
Words by Don on August 20, 2008 at 8:10 pm | #
*Comment for G from Union City*
Taking a right turn isn’t safe, as the flash will go off if you are deemed to be going too fast to safely take the righ turn. and it’ll cost ‘ya $381….we’re still stinging from that one.
Words by Burney on August 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm | #
A BTW to my comment above- I used to work in Va Beach, Virginia, in a building on the corner of an intersection which had a red-light camera. In my own experience of what I saw everyday at lunchtime, I’d say that it did make drivers better behaved and run the red light less; and also it seemed to cause less backups within the intersection, since drivers didn’t want to be caught in it when the light changed and risk a ticket.
That said, I went through that intersection multiple times a day, and did notice that the yellow light time was decreased. Maybe it wasn’t intentional, but on one side, it would go from green straight to red without even lighting up the yellow light at all. (Maybe just a bad light sequence program though.)
Words by KBP on August 20, 2008 at 8:12 pm | #
the picture in the middle is not a ‘red light camera’. It’s one type of photo-electric traffic sensor which is used to determine if a car is waiting and if the light should be cycled. These are replacing the old inlaid induction coils nationswide.
Also, Virginia only had red-light cameras during an ‘evaluation period’ provided by a law which has reached its (built-in) expiration date.
Words by Thanatos on August 20, 2008 at 8:40 pm | #
It doesn’t make sense that red light cameras increase accidents, and you don’t explain the mechanism. You say “studies show,” but you don’t provide citations. Apparently you aren’t mentioning contrary studies. Or maybe every contrary study is “flawed” in your opinion.
Frankly, I don’t believe you. Immature young men love to hate traffic cameras. But then, come to think of it, they tend to hate ALL authority figures, don’t they?
You seem to suggest it’s better to run a red light than to risk getting rear ended. What kind of ridiculous logic is that? Listen to yourself!
I’m happy to see red light cameras. The more the better. They are keeping me and my family alive.
Funny thing… I have driven through a dozen camera intersections every day for several years and I’ve never gotten a ticket. (Never been rear-ended at a traffic light, either.) Why would that be? Maybe because I drive at a reasonable speed? Duh!
Words by Pookybear on August 20, 2008 at 8:48 pm | #
To KBP - I noticed the yellow lights were pretty rapid-fire too, and like you, I was also pretty much in favor of their use. I was actually pretty surprised when I read the “expose” in the paper because I had never personally witnessed any accidents caused by the cameras.
And thanks [sincerely] for being so civil with your response, it’s definitely refreshing.
Words by Suzanne Denbow on August 20, 2008 at 8:57 pm | #
You just need to remember one little phrase when you goto court for a “camera ticket”
Objection your honor hearsay.
The officer on the stand did NOT witness what happened and there is NO proof that it even DID happen (can you see both you your position your plate and the LIGHT being red all in the same photograph?) Were you even driving?
Its hearsay and inadmissible.
Words by Chris Taylor on August 20, 2008 at 9:28 pm | #
It should be 6 months in prison for bastards who jump lights.
You are wrong admit it
Words by John on August 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm | #
@Pookybear
Perhaps the studies weren’t cited because we thought you knew how to use google.
phrases to google
University of South Florida Public Health redlight
Councilmember Kim, the City’s main proponent, cites a lobbyist’s study (the Texas Research Board) as the sole source for “debunking” the multitudes of nationwide government and safety-institute studies which show rear-end collisions have risen anywhere from 8-81% where these programs have been implemented
STOP! Running that red-light could be deadly!
try any combination of keywords including “research” “study” and “redlight”
Words by Don on August 21, 2008 at 1:36 am | #
@burney
Believe me, I know all about the right turn on red ticket. You CAN contest it in court to have it reduced to $80 because its a right turn instead of going straight through. (because its like running a stop sign or something)
My point was that I will rather slow down and approach the right turn instead of chancing the light turning red while i’m going to fast to stop.
Words by G- on August 21, 2008 at 2:12 am | #
The foto-proofs are doctored. The camera contractor has driver(s) positioned ahead to stop and hold several following cars that are turning left at the intersec to make at least one driver got trapped in the red-light. Actually the trapped cars moved into the crossing to turn left when it was still green but the foto-proofs were fotoshopped. This happened in Ventura, CA.
One camera-trap has been removed from Wilshire-Westwood intersec in L.A., Ca. Probably because a judge or his relative living nearby had been caught by those cams.
Words by oprahress on August 21, 2008 at 4:05 am | #
@ The Author
“That’s right, the state actually tampers with the yellow light settings to make them shorter, and more likely to turn red as you’re driving through them.”
So what if it turns red while in the intersection? That doesn’t result in a ticket.
Words by Dannyboy on August 21, 2008 at 8:22 am | #
There is another source of crashes occurring because of these lights. That is when people pull down the sunshade to obscure their faces. These people are driving blind.
Words by Brian on August 21, 2008 at 9:39 am | #
The whole US transportation infrastructure is a scam — from soup to nuts — designed to fleece the poor, and enrich the elite. From selling cars, to gas, to tolls, to road taxes, to mandatory insurance, to traffic enforcement. Everyone should be walking (or riding bikes) instead, that’s the real truth of the matter. Then all this baloney would be an non-issue for the lemming masses.
Words by Rumple Stiltskin on August 21, 2008 at 9:50 am | #
It happen to me in Germany, 25 yrs ago. Behind me was a big German truck “MAN”. When I approached the light, it changed fast and I slowed down. We were at 50 km hr. and barely stoped, but the truck didn’t make it and he had to pass me taking a very sharp turn. I agree, bad accidents can happen and here is not the drivers fault, are those greedy assholes that want to bring more revenue. This is Highway Robbery and I think they are liable to pay. Find a good lawyer and sue them.
Words by Rompecoglioni on August 21, 2008 at 10:14 am | #
The people defending red light cameras here are most probably:
1) Communists who love state power
2) Government employees
3) Employees of companies that receive contracts for red light cameras
Some people can’t get enough regulations and Big Brother in their lives, apparently. If they didn’t have some thug in uniform telling them what to do and how to live, they probably couldn’t function outside of bed each day.
Words by A. Magnus on August 21, 2008 at 10:46 am | #
The fact that they are using taxpayer dollars to generate more taxpayer dollars is disturbing, especially when that money could be better spent on things that actually benefit the taxpayer (better roads, schools, fire departments, et al).
If cameras are such a great idea, then why do we need law enforcement??? The cost of just one camera could employee several additional police officers per year, then perhaps when seconds really count we wouldn’t have to wait the minutes it now takes to get help.
Words by Mosby on August 21, 2008 at 11:04 am | #
In Canada we have a yellow light between the green and the red lights. This gives the time necessary to either safely go through the yellow, or to stop before the light turns red. I’m in favor of red light cameras as it helps me to go through the green light, without waiting for the idiots running the red to clear the intersection.
Now if only the drivers could figure out what that red octagon with “STOP” written on it means…..
Words by Drew on August 21, 2008 at 11:58 am | #
Anybody who comes to a site like this and makes posts in favor of red light cameras is an agent provocateur…only a fool would want more of his or her money going into the taxational black hole, when the end result would be even more bodily injury to themselves and their neighbors than they are already incurring via the murderous health care system, taser-packing police, and illegal wars…red light cameras are part of the elitist agenda to monitor everybody’s movements…but I know, I know - there are no conspiracies…Watergate never happened…rich people spend their free time sitting around dreaming up ways to give the money BACK to us…they don’t sit around dreaming up ways to take more of it from us…when you and I can set up cameras that monitor lawmakers’ (and rich people’s) every move, I’ll acquiesce to having my movements monitored…otherwise - no deal.
Words by Bob Smith on August 21, 2008 at 1:25 pm | #
@G
Gotcha…I’ve also heard the same from a couple other people, I think we’re definitely going to contest the ticket.
Words by Burney on August 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm | #
I got a ticket on Christmas morning which was a Sunday. I was cruising along Sunset Blvd., not excessively speeding, but when I approached the intersection, the light changed to yellow and I thought I would make it. I was the only person on the road, so I didn’t even worry about trying to stop. Then I see the FLASH. The fine for the infraction seems excessive. It was $365 for the fine. Another $40 to the court to be allowed to attend Traffic School. Then another $24.95 to the traffic school.
Now I can see using the cameras during rush hour traffic when people are often hurrying to get to work and will run red lights, but is the camera necessary 24 hours a day? Pedestrian countdown timers are replacing the old DONT WALK signs all over the city and I use the timers to gauge if the light is going to change, and it helps, but I noticed they haven’t installed the pedestrian timers at any of the intersections with the cameras. I guess they can’t have people gauging the light change and stopping in time. They would lose the money. Now whenever I approach a intersection with a camera and the DONT WALK sign is no longer flashing, I sort of freak out because I know the light is about to change but who knows when? I’m not speeding, but I don’t want to get caught. It messes with my driving psyche.
Also, I’ve personally witnessed other vehicles running the red light and it doesn’t look like the camera is working because there’s no flash. When you get caught, there’s a big flash to let you know they got you. So, the cameras work sometimes and other times they don’t. It’s not consistent. Then I read in the paper that the city of Beverly Hills had not paid the bill to the company that maintains the cameras, so they were not operating.
Finally the “right turn on red” privilege in California means you must come to a complete stop BEFORE making the turn. It doesn’t mean that you can make the turn as if you had the green light. I see people who barely slow down to look to the left to see if any cars are coming and they just go. They don’t bother looking to the right at all. They don’t know if a person is about to cross the street, or if someone on a bike is coming either.
The “California Stop/Roll” applies the the intersections with stop signs.
Words by Greg Ramirez on August 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm | #
One of the biggest complaints is that when these cameras are set up the amber (caution) light’s time is shortened so that it is very easy to catch a driver “running” a red light. In California the vehicle code says that the image must be “a clear image of the license plate AND the driver.” A copy of the picture is then sent to the driver with the citation. I know of one person who bought a vehicle a couple of years ago and kept on the sales paper on the window and never put on the license plates. She kept her car immaculate so it looked like a new car. This way if she happened to accidentally run a red light with a camera there was no way of finding her. Pretty smart lady, I must say.
Words by Alex on August 21, 2008 at 2:00 pm | #
These cameras are all over Chicago. At night, cars trigger huge flood lights that light up the vehicle running the light in order to get a good picture of the plates.
I apparently ran a red light when crossing a Chicago 6 way intersection (we have sections where 3 streets all merge with one at an angle to the other two). These intersections are impossible to navigate at 30+ miles an hour. I paid the ticket because protesting in Chicago is akin to arguing with the Mob.
Needless to say, I am paranoid now and brake hard when lights change. I hate it. They enforce this but 6 cars can turn after a red with no problem in Chicago. Totally stupid.
Words by jim on August 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm | #
I would like to congratulate all of the mindless sycophants here who think that red light cameras are a great idea. It is quite gratifying to see that all of you are completely, totally 100% incapable of seeing what is going on. As your freedoms are stripped from you one at a time with every passing day, I would like you to know that it is people like you, who are not capable of seeing through the Matrix at any level, who are allowing this to happen. 1984 isn’t just the title of a great book — Orwell’s society is here now and has been here for a decade or more. Every surveillance camera that goes up, whether at a red light or on a public corner, insures that you will wind up slaves. Every unalienable right that disappears from your feckless grasp is a testament to your stupor. Congratulations on your unmatched abilities to laud your oppressors as you lick the spittle from their boots. You people deserve precisely what you are now getting and what is coming down the tunnel at you with a full head of steam as you laugh and say how wonderful it all is. As for me, give me liberty or give me death. I wash my hands of all of you.
“Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and ultimately will have neither.” Benjamin Franklin, 1792
Words by Patrick on August 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm | #
OK, here is a solution for all of you who hate red light cameras and what they represent and want to protect yourselves from fascist governments who think they own you.
There are little devices sold by many different companies which cover your license plates and obscure the number when viewed from a substantial angle. They are made from a translucent material and when viewed from straight on, the number is perfectly clear. These plate covers render the red light camera, photo radar camera, or any other type of traffic enforcement camera ineffective. Since the cameras are generally photographing your plate from an angle, your number cannot be determined. If your plate number cannot be seen in the photo, you cannot be issued a ticket via camera. I have used them on my plates for almost ten years and have never had a problem.
Words by Had Enough on August 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm | #
The ticket aspect of the red light cams is a cover story. They will issue tickets, but that is not their real mission. It is part of a Police State control grid, to track and control travel. Haven’t you noticed the change in demeanor of pigs country-wide? The tasers? The abuse? They are very slowly implementing what will become the most totalitarian society in world history. WAKE UP!
Words by Art on August 21, 2008 at 5:00 pm | #
We have these in L.A. I haven’t gotten a ticket from those cameras yet. I attribute it to the fact that I slam on the brakes the second the light turns yellow. It would be nice to have a warning light to tell me when the light is about to turn yellow, so I don’t risk being rear ended.
The countdown pedestrian crossing lights help.
Words by neurolux on August 21, 2008 at 8:51 pm | #
Always drive with your sun visor in the down position. The cameras won’t be able to get a good snap of your face. And avoid having your front plate if you can.
Words by Joe Blough on August 21, 2008 at 8:58 pm | #
If the fine is 0ver $20, you have the Right to a jury trial.
At your first appearance Demand a jury trial if you think that you are right.
Words by Patrick Sullivan on August 21, 2008 at 10:39 pm | #
hello! I live in Italy and we have a lot of red light cameras in our cities…all around the country cities have been sued for shortening the yellow
Words by albert on August 22, 2008 at 4:23 am | #
John says
“It should be 6 months in prison for bastards who jump lights.
You are wrong admit it”
Dude, NO ONE is saying its not wrong to run red lights. I was Tboned by a guy who deliberately ran a red light to keep up with a car he was following. What the author is saying is that red light cameras are a money making scam. There are all kinds of problems related to them such as the city shortening the yellow which DOES cause accidents, camera malfunctions wrongly ticketing people with no due process for those ticketed, and most importantly, the loss of hundreds or years of legal precedent of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Words by cj on August 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm | #
Back in the late 90s, I once received a traffic ticket for running a red light in Fullerton, CA. As I was approaching the light, I noticed that it had turned red far too soon. Of course a police officer was hidden nearby to site me for the traffic violation.
I told him that I thought the transition time from yellow to red was much too short and asked how I inquire about the timer settings. He told me to contact the city transportation office.
Afterwards, I went back to the traffic light with my video camera and captured many transitions in order to have evidence of the timing.
When I called the city transportation office, the department manager told me that I could request the timing history of that particular light but it would take some time to get that information.
In the mean time, I went to the California department of transportation’s web site to find the legal minimum time for a traffic light located in a specific speed limit.
It turns out that the timing of the light was set too short, and when I contested the citation, the judge ruled in my favor.
I was quite satisfied with the decision, but it took a lot of time to build my case.
It is outrageous that cities are doing this.
Words by Mark on August 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm | #
“How about we put dragster lights too so we know before the light turns green? Idiot.”
Hey idiot, England has lights like that.
Words by People are stupid on August 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm | #
[...] Paging the legislature. Paging the legislature. according to study after study, rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and therefore, raise insurance premiums. In fact, the only studies that have shown any benefit to red-light cameras were either done by the IIHS…the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, or researchers funded by them. How very strange, don’t you think? [...]
Pingback by Red-Light Cameras Just Don’t Work | Peach Pundit on August 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm | #
Note that Springfield, MO has a 4 sec. cycle on their camera lights and 7 sec on the regular lights. Hmm… I wonder why?
By the way, these lights are not generating enough to pay for their operation. The number of accidents at regular lighted intersections has not decreased overall - but the number at the camera locations certainly has.
The camera locations are identified via signage. Maybe they should just put up signs?
Words by SomeOne on August 22, 2008 at 6:50 pm | #
Huh?
Red light cameras work just fine. They are very reliable and accurate. The red light cameras didn’t change the cycle of the lights… corrupt officials did.
Words by David on August 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm | #
Seems to me that the problem is not with red-light cameras, but rather with the abuse of yellow light timing.
As someone who has come very close to being hit by red-light runners over and over again here in NYC, I am very much in favor of red light cameras - but the yellow lights have to be timed correctly and the cameras have to be set up fairly. I think they should be on every single lighted intersection.
Here in Manhattan, drivers regularly drive through red lights as though they don’t apply to them. I’m not talking about catching the tail end of a yellow light and having the light change mid-intersection. I’m talking the light has allready turned red and the driver has an opportunity to stop but does not. I am a bicyclist, and use my bike in traffic to get around the city. I do not appreciate nearly getting killed by motorists who think they don’t have to stop for red lights.
The problem is with the yellow light timing, not with the red-light cameras. If you don’t want to be ticketed at a stop light, there is a very simple way to avoid it: don’t stop it. and stop for yellow lights unless you are way too close to the intersection to hit the brakes.
I drive too, and I’ve never had a single red-light ticket, I prioritize stopping for lights over just squeezing past them.
Words by JoeBoy on August 22, 2008 at 9:12 pm | #
Regarding rear-end collisions caused by red-light cameras, due to people slamming on the brakes:
Most drivers do not treat yellow lights like they should. A yellow light means STOP IF YOU CAN. Which also means you should only continue on if there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that you can stop before hitting the intersection. Unfortunately most drivers treat them differently. Most people actually speed up when they see yellow lights, which is morbidly stupid.
The fact is, if you are moving no faster than the speed limit, and you are defensive about your driving and stop when you can when you see a yellow light, you will never, ever run a red light or get a ticket for it. Nor will you be likely to get rear ended, and in the event that you do, the onus will fall on the person following you.
Otherwise: the argument that the insurance companies are pushing red-light cameras on cities to increase accidents is intensely stupid. Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums far in excess of the amount of payouts they make for accident compensation. An insurance company that offers lower premiums and performs fewer payouts makes way more money than an insurance company that offers higher premiums and makes more payouts. You would have to be a complete moron to try and increase revenue at your insurance company by increasing accidents.
The short term effects of red light cameras are probably going to yeild higher rear-end accidents, but that’s not because of the cameras - its because people don’t drive responsibly: most people follow too close and drive too fast and speed up at yellow lights. This is why accidents occur, not because some camera did or didn’t take your picture.
Again, people shouldn’t be fussing with yellow light timing, but the real problem is that most people drive like total assholes.
Words by JoeBoy on August 22, 2008 at 9:35 pm | #
Lubbock took down their cameras after less than six months because rear-end accidents increased and the tickets were only a civil penalty (therefore 30-40% of the fines were ignored.)
I can’t speak to the validity of the yellow-light shortening argument, but I find it hard to believe. For Lubbock, it came down to the cameras weren’t making enough money to pay for them to be in place. They had to make a certain amount of money before anything was kicked over to the city and in the first six months, I don’t know if the city received any revenue.
The citizenry complained, the city looked stupid for having a $1.5 million dollar budget deficit and the whole thing was over and done with.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/021508/loc_247128772.shtml
Words by fleeg on August 22, 2008 at 10:14 pm | #
Sorry to say this, but your bias to way too obvious here as anyone could tell you that the main, and possibly only, reason red light cameras don’t work is because of the decreased yellow time. But your article doesn’t make it obvious. Instead, it tried to play out that red light cameras are inherently dangerous or something. Now, I don’t like them, either (although I hate speed cameras more), but please don’t post stuff that make us all look like bias, petrol-head retards, OK? If red light cameras were setup properly, how exactly would they make things worse?
Words by Justin on August 22, 2008 at 11:23 pm | #
Whether cameras work or not, running red lights (and stop signs) has become rampant in the Atlanta area over the last ten years or so. It used to be a rare event to see someone run a red light. It is now a daily occurrence. I see drivers on a daily basis run red lights and stop signs willingly and blatantly. They do not “roll through”, they do so with their foot firmly on the floor. These are often the same people who treat others on the road as mere obstacles or debris to be gone around. I see this as part of a growing cultural phenomenon where people are increasingly exhibiting blatant disrespect for their fellow man. Much like some of the people above who use the anonymity of the Internet to post insulting commentary.
Words by GOPaul on August 23, 2008 at 9:55 pm | #
To make more informed arguments for and against Red-Light Cameras visit http://www.TNLiberty.org for objective synopses of all the comprehensive studies. You can learn the essence without slogging through lengthy studies. Of course, if you want to read the originals, the links are there to follow. I particularly recommend checking:
* Red-Light Cameras: The Good, The Bad, and The Uncertain
* The Placebo Effect and Red-Light Cameras
* RLCs: Engineering vs. Enforcement
* Biasing RLC Studies
And, under the TLA BLOGS menu on http://www.TNLiberty.org:
* Excellent 2004 TX Study to Understand Red-Light Running
* RLCs Do Not Guaranty Reduced Accident Rates
* Compelling 2007 Compendium on Photo-Radar and RLCs
See if that information yields some new insight that you can use to your advantage.
Words by Dale on August 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm | #
If people jumping red lights get t boned could part of the cause be people anticipating the change to green on the other junction. The way to overcome all arguments is to have a longer period of red lights on all junctions then setting the cameras to flash a couple of seconds on red. there then can be no defence about the lights having just changed. The extra delay on the opposing lights giving a safer margin in case anyone does run a red light. Therefore anyone caught redlighting should have their licences revoked as the amount of time the red has been on means they have conciously and with forethought put peoples lives at risk. Attemted murder????
Words by alan on August 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm | #
People would be advised to get used to the red light cameras and accept that wherever you live you’ll probably end up having the world become more like the silliest place on earth, Perth, Western Australia! See, here we’ve come to realise that it doen’t matter whether a motrist gets killed.. we know everyone makes a mistake at some point or another, but the Powers That Be have decided that a mistake should potentially cost you your life. It’s the cheapest and easiest way to remove bad motorists from the road.. Steel power poles in the middle of the roads with no barriers! Chicanes beyond the crest of a hill! U-turn locations in a dip in the road on a curve! Arbitrary speed zones and cameras wherever there’s a new speed change! Anything to make sure the probability of a simple mistake can be increased and turned into a fatality! Want more? Install roundabouts with limestone walls on main roads (on curves is best) and don’t install lighting! Put median strips between lanes in the middle of no-where (good for killing motorcyclists at night when they overtake.. surprise!) Change the direction of one way streets regularly! Narrow main feeder roads into congested areas to single lane (good to ensure anyone injured can’t be treated by an ambulance when an accident DOES occur). Street beautification - narrow city streets to single lane and provide stagger strips for the drunks to wander down at nigt (like median strips, but with the obstacle of trees for drunks to navigate) - when they fall off - bang! Very high, sharp edged weaving curbing on median strips is good too.. hit them, blow your tyre and tear loose the tie rod and you lose control of the car - you can take out other motorists this way too.. and bycicles who dare to ride near such will find themselves flung in front of cars when their pedals strike the very high kerbing on a down-pedal. Redevelop central locations and add new short feeder streets near busy intersections (within 50 feel is good .. right near a highway on/off ramp is best!) - this allows tensions to go through the roof in peak hour traffic, causing drivers to take risks after 20 minutes of waiting to enter traffic flow and when they do go, bang, you got another annoying driver off the road - permanently. Not good enough? Plant dense growing foliage on roundabouts and on median strips so children have to step onto the road before they can see approaching traffic.. even better, oldies on gophers stand NO chance of crossing such streets. Increase speeding fines, drop fines for driving on footpaths and driving on the wrong side of the road .. you can’t police these former offences with cameras anyway, and it sends the message to drivers that anything is OK as long as you do not speed. All this is a very cost efficient way to remove those pesky cars from the road without the fuss of courts.. and that’s a good thing, right? yeah!
Words by Karl on August 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm | #
“… the huge number of accidents resulting from people frantically trying to avoid ticket-by-camera…”
So what you’re saying is, the Government thought that motorists were careless, but it turns out that they’re actually just complete idiots.
If you want to avoid ticket-by-camera, just DRIVE THE WAY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DRIVE ANYWAY, instead of driving like a moron all the time except when you think someone is watching.
Bloody children.
Words by JC on August 27, 2008 at 6:18 am | #
[...] Vito Rispo writing at RideLust.com: In fact, six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the yellow light cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. Those local governments have completely ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead. [...]
Pingback by Negligible Knowledge Base on August 27, 2008 at 2:57 pm | #
Just a note regarding the information about Springfield, MO and their reduction of yellow timers on some City intersection lights…
Yes, it seems to be the case that the City of Springfield, MO did indeed shorten the yellow time on some 105 city intersection stop lights. However, they also lengthened the yellow timers on 136 of them. The stated reasoning for this was two-fold: (1) Those yellow timers that needed to be lengthened were extended to meet national standards, and (2) those that were shortened were previously so long, it was determined by City Engineers to actually encourage drivers to hurry up and try to make the yellow before they turned red, thereby causing more frequent and more serious (because they were going faster when impacts occurred) accidents.
I’m not suggesting that you’ve been cherry-picking your figures, but with the above cited figures, perhaps you’d like to shorten your list of examples to just five?
Words by Darin on August 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm | #
redlight cameras are plain dumb i’ve seen people act plain crazy screeching to a stop at intersections with them.
Words by BoredQuiz on August 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm | #
@JC
Of course you’re right, but I think you’re also highly underestimating the entertainment value of teenagers desperately trying to maintain their cool aloofness while furiously attempting to avoid a ticket.
Words by Suzanne Denbow on August 28, 2008 at 4:40 pm | #
Red-light-cameras do work! Take cameras in Calgary, Alberta (population 1 million for those who have never heard of the city) red light cameras reduced fatalities in t-bone collisions at intersections with the cameras by 100 per cent and injury collisions by 50 per cent.
Insurance companies want more collisions so they can raise premiums!??? That idea must come from someone who frequently drives under the influence because the logic is completely absent. More claims means more payouts which result in higher premiums. Are you saying that the insurance companies make money on volume!?
Virginia had problems with rear-end collisions at intersections with cameras. In other words Virginia drivers tailgate too much, only a little less dangerous that running red lights.
The problem with red light cameras is that most people don’t like being caught breaking the law. They think traffic laws are just guidelines. Tell that to someone who’s been killed by a driver who runs a red light.
Check the images from those cameras, many of them are frightening.
Words by Brent Harding on August 29, 2008 at 2:53 am | #
This is from Cory Dotcorow’s new book, Little Brother:
“It’s called “the paradox of the false positive,” and it’s a doozy.
Say you have a new disease, called Super-AIDS. Only one in a million people gets Super-AIDS. You develop a test for Super-AIDS that’s 99 percent accurate. I mean, 99 percent of the time, it gives the correct result — true if the subject is infected, and false if the subject is healthy. You give the test to a million people.
One in a million people have Super-AIDS. One in a hundred people that you test will generate a “false positive” — the test will say he has Super-AIDS even though he doesn’t. That’s what “99 percent accurate” means: one percent wrong.
What’s one percent of one million?
1,000,000/100 = 10,000
One in a million people has Super-AIDS. If you test a million random people, you’ll probably only find one case of real Super-AIDS. But your test won’t identify one person as having Super-AIDS. It will identify 10,000 people as having it.
Your 99 percent accurate test will perform with 99.99 percent inaccuracy.
That’s the paradox of the false positive. When you try to find something really rare, your test’s accuracy has to match the rarity of the thing you’re looking for. If you’re trying to point at a single pixel on your screen, a sharp pencil is a good pointer: the pencil-tip is a lot smaller (more accurate) than the pixels. But a pencil-tip is no good at pointing at a single atom in your screen. For that, you need a pointer — a test — that’s one atom wide or less at the tip.
This is the paradox of the false positive, and here’s how it applies to terrorism:
Terrorists are really rare. In a city of twenty million like New York, there might be one or two terrorists. Maybe ten of them at the outside. 10/20,000,000 = 0.00005 percent. One twenty-thousandth of a percent.
That’s pretty rare all right. Now, say you’ve got some software that can sift through all the bank-records, or toll-pass records, or public transit records, or phone-call records in the city and catch terrorists 99 percent of the time.
In a pool of twenty million people, a 99 percent accurate test will identify two hundred thousand people as being terrorists. But only ten of them are terrorists. To catch ten bad guys, you have to haul in and investigate two hundred thousand innocent people.
Guess what? Terrorism tests aren’t anywhere close to 99 percent accurate. More like 60 percent accurate. Even 40 percent accurate, sometimes.”
The Point?
Anyone claiming these red light cameras reduce t-bone accidents by 100%, or 50% (BTW, Calgary t-bones have gone down by 43% not 100%), you have to first know how many accidents were happening in the first place. If there were only 10 accidents from people running red lights, and they’ve been reduced by 4 accidents….is that worth the 3.7 million dollars a year that they take from motorists who get ticketed because of them? No, it’s not. Those statistics are the illusion of quality. Red Light Cameras are a waste of resources and pure robbery of the good citizens of whatever city is unfortunate enough to have them.
Words by Vito Rispo on August 29, 2008 at 11:02 am | #
Not all of these cameras work properly, and I am a proven
victim of these stupid cameras in Texas. Even the pictures on the web
prove that I made a complete stop at a red light. My brake lights are on,
I am behind the white line, my signal light is on and then I turn. It also said
I was going 17 MPH through and it was a clear day. BUT IT WAS RAINING
AND THE PICTURES DON’T LIE WHAT HAPPEN! YET THEY STILL MAILED ME A TICKET FOR MONEY. NOTHING BUT ILLEGAL CROOKS FOR MONEY. MAYBE I SHOULD SUE FOR HARASSMENT.
SAFELIGHT CAMERAS IN TEXAS SUCK!
Words by safelight sucks on August 29, 2008 at 11:26 pm | #
I can tell you how they create more accidents.
Yesterday while driving toward an intersection with red light camera, a car saw the light turn yellow and immediately stopped in the middle of the intersection. This car blocked 2 lanes of traffic, the vehicles behind had to also stop quickly and then the car wanted to back up to the stop line, as he was blocking traffic - all because he was fearful the light may turn red while he was traveling. He entered on the green as it turned yellow - but only noticed the yellow then slammed on his brakes.
Words by Brian on September 11, 2008 at 11:45 am | #
After receiving my Red Light Camera Ticket in Fullerton, CA, I wrote the Fullerton City Council that I was boycotting all of their business establishments as long as they have these lights. I spent several thousand dollars in Fullerton Business establishments last year. Fortunately I can shop nearby in Cities that have no Red Light Camera Enforcement without much difficulty. If more people would do this maybe they would get the message. They are losing more Tax money from me than the Fine they are receiving.
Words by Glenn Spradley on September 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm | #
1 question… who the heck intentionally wants to run a red light and get T-boned????? Lets be real.. we are talking seconds here… the seconds that go by because since the invention of the traffic light.. there’s no way for a motorist to know how many seconds it takes for the light to change from yellow to red. Ever been behind a truck on a hill in traffic going through an intersection where you can’t see the traffic light only to get into the intersection and realize the truck went through the yellow and now it’s red? Ever been traveling on a really slick road and have the light change from green to yellow.. and not know if you have enough time to brake safely without skidding because you have no idea how quickly the light will turn red? (Of course while traveling at the proper speed limit and not tailgating anyone, for all you excuse makers) Ever been driving on a snow covered street and had a light change and you slide into the intersection? I could go on.. and on for days about things that happen that could have caused me to get a ticket.. and some things that have caused me to get a ticket. Not during any one of those tickets i received was i trying to intentionally run a red light and get my only car totaled. I think a timer on the yellow and an increased wait from red to green would eliminate almost all the accidents that do occur.. for a heck of a lot less money to the local municipality… (remember .. this is just for high traffic areas.. not every traffic light) but then … that wouldnt keep the millions rolling in .. in the form of unjustified tickets. Oh.. and we could pay for the timers with the proceeds from the selling of the cameras
Words by Roger Grimsby on October 4, 2008 at 6:38 pm | #
[...] that the cameras actually caused more accidents at those intersection they were installed in (see: Red-Light Cameras Just Don’t Work) A good website to view these and other information is The National Motorists Association Website [...]
Pingback by Stupid Traffic Camera Cop - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion on October 5, 2008 at 9:19 am | #
[...] … they don’t. ALL of the links I have looked at suggest … they increase intersection accidents. Course, that begs the question … why install them? Easy. A very attractive way for [...]
Pingback by “THE FRIDAY NIGHT RAMBLINGS” » Blog Archive » October 17, 2008 on October 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm | #
Very good site, greate content !!,
Words by Lennon on November 4, 2008 at 12:34 pm | #
The photos ARE doctored. I was driving with my mother as passenger, and went through a yellow light in the San Fernando Valley, CA. My mother is a back-seat driver and does not let me get away with anything. She, too, said the light was yellow. The photos showed that the light was red before I entered the intersection . I am an HR Director with high ethical standards. How do you fight something like this? I am willing to join any team to protest or ???
Words by Elise on November 12, 2008 at 11:00 am | #
Whether or not you are guilty of running the red light misses the point. These tickets are essentially charging our cars with moving violations. Using the same legal logic, if I get cited for speeding (via camera) while driving a friends car, the owner of the car is responsible for the offense. Proving the drivers identity via snapshot is never without reasonable doubt. Not to mention violating our 6th amendment right, guaranteeing our right to face and to question our accuser. Can a video camera be questioned under oath?
Words by John Z on November 18, 2008 at 1:46 am | #
A good idea would be to have a timer at every intersection. Decision making would be so much easier. When i went to Dominican Republic they had them there. The unorganized traffic over there is ridicules. So why don’t we have them here?
Words by Joe on November 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm | #
im nuts with big nuts, i love saying that XD,
Words by Mitchell on November 27, 2008 at 4:27 am | #