4 ms·

This article seems to make a point that we should get rid of the red light cameras because they increase rear crashes. Ignoring for a moment that T-bone crashe

This article seems to make a point that we should get rid of the red light cameras because they increase rear crashes. Ignoring for a moment that T-bone crashes are likely to produce much more severe injuries than someone crumpling up the rear of another car, this should suggest that we instead need ways to monitor motorists for keeping proper distance and attentiveness. The solution can't be to stop monitoring for one offense because it causes incompetent motorists to cause more offenses of another sort.

melling 12y ago
Are we talking about people who would normally run the light then realize there's a camera? I don't know why the existence of cameras should increase accidents if people weren't trying to beat the light.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  Several studies have shown that cities installing red-light cameras "coincidentally" have ridiculously short yellow lights. The yellow light should last long enough for anyone already committed to going through the green light to safely finish doing so. Otherwise, drivers in the intersection have to accelerate to avoid having the light turn red with them still in the intersection, and drivers not yet in the intersection have to slam on the brakes and effectively treat yellow as red.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Why is the traffic light relevant when you are in the intersection? In Germany it doesn't matter anymore once you enter the intersection, mostly since you just cannot see it. It seems absurd to me that the traffic light would still be applicable at that point. To me the rule then is basically for everyone to pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
    - JoshTriplett 12y ago
      Which is exactly how it should work, and normally does, in the absence of a red-light camera.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 12y ago
Gonna need a citation on that T-bone decrease, buddy. Sorry. "Scheinfeld said in an interview last week that the city's safety claims are based on "more basic," nonscientific comparisons of crash statistics"
- dalke 12y ago
  The citation is given in this article, which says there's a 15% decrease, and not the 47% of the nonscientific comparisons: > "But the Tribune study, which 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." It also includes the analysis that revelation calls for (the balance of severity and incidence rate): > "The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear-end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes," the 2005 study concluded. "There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems." which is why "The Tribune researchers also suggested that Chicago could reap much better results if it shut down about 40 percent of its cameras, located in about 75 intersections throughout the city where crash rates were lower to begin with."
themartorana 12y ago
The solution is well known - increase yellow light times. [0] It reduces accidents (both rear and t-bone) and violations. But it's crap for generating more revenue, which is quite often seen as more important. [0] http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths
- mc32 12y ago
  I think it's both. Increase times and also enforce red-light cameras --but within reason. Where I live, at some intersections there aren't always dedicated LH turn lanes, so people have to wait till oncoming traffic has a large enough gap to make the left. Often times, the only time left to make the left is to wait for the yellow... and the 3 or four cars behind have an option of going through a red light or waiting again for a yield on green... In this situation, people have little option but going through a red (or possibly taking a more circuitous route). That said, for the most part, I feel red light cameras are a racket.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

melling 12y ago

Are we talking about people who would normally run the light then realize there's a camera? I don't know why the existence of cameras should increase accidents if people weren't trying to beat the light.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Several studies have shown that cities installing red-light cameras "coincidentally" have ridiculously short yellow lights. The yellow light should last long enough for anyone already committed to going through the green light to safely finish doing so. Otherwise, drivers in the intersection have to accelerate to avoid having the light turn red with them still in the intersection, and drivers not yet in the intersection have to slam on the brakes and effectively treat yellow as red.
- arrrg 12y ago
  Why is the traffic light relevant when you are in the intersection? In Germany it doesn't matter anymore once you enter the intersection, mostly since you just cannot see it. It seems absurd to me that the traffic light would still be applicable at that point. To me the rule then is basically for everyone to pay attention to what everyone else is doing.
  - JoshTriplett 12y ago
    Which is exactly how it should work, and normally does, in the absence of a red-light camera.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rhizome 12y ago

Gonna need a citation on that T-bone decrease, buddy. Sorry. "Scheinfeld said in an interview last week that the city's safety claims are based on "more basic," nonscientific comparisons of crash statistics"

dalke 12y ago
The citation is given in this article, which says there's a 15% decrease, and not the 47% of the nonscientific comparisons: > "But the Tribune study, which 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." It also includes the analysis that revelation calls for (the balance of severity and incidence rate): > "The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear-end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes," the 2005 study concluded. "There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems." which is why "The Tribune researchers also suggested that Chicago could reap much better results if it shut down about 40 percent of its cameras, located in about 75 intersections throughout the city where crash rates were lower to begin with."

themartorana 12y ago

The solution is well known - increase yellow light times. [0] It reduces accidents (both rear and t-bone) and violations. But it's crap for generating more revenue, which is quite often seen as more important. [0] http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths

mc32 12y ago
I think it's both. Increase times and also enforce red-light cameras --but within reason. Where I live, at some intersections there aren't always dedicated LH turn lanes, so people have to wait till oncoming traffic has a large enough gap to make the left. Often times, the only time left to make the left is to wait for the yellow... and the 3 or four cars behind have an option of going through a red light or waiting again for a yield on green... In this situation, people have little option but going through a red (or possibly taking a more circuitous route). That said, for the most part, I feel red light cameras are a racket.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]