Thank you Duker. I had the same thoughts about cams causing more accitents at places that have them. I didn't have the info for backing it up though. And I hate people who slam on their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow. That is why when I come up to a stale green light, I look for the crosswalk sign to see if the "no walk" symbol is blinking. If it is, I know the light is getting close to changing. I am not a reckless driver, just realistic in the fact that the light sometime changes to red just as cars are getting through the intersection.

 

Im not mentioning names. But everytime I ahve driven with a law and order driver . They break a lot of traffic laws. A very close relative was telling em he didnt need a radar detector cause he doesnt break any laws. This is while driving 40 in a 25, making a right turn rolling stop with no turn signal on. Traffic enforcement should always be about safety. Not revenue generating.

 

If we had half as many drivers here (were the size of Iowa) we'd probably be a lot safer.

 

I don't know where to start with you. So I'll go in order.

1 Can you site proof that the cams cause accidents?
2 Yes. You're supposed to stop if you can.
3 You should never rear-end somebody if you're follwing at a safe distance and paying attention. If you rear-end somebody it's your fault. Did the Red Light Camera cause the accident? No, a bad driver did.

Your idea; "The owners place the cameras not at places where you would think needs em. But rather on where the most traffic flow is." is logic looped back into itself. Why the heck would they place cameras where traffic volume was low? The city chooses the placement locations, not the company that manages them.

I'm not going to mess with the empty police car idea.

 

So... raise taxes to cover the enforcement costs? That'll work.

 

Well yes I can

Follow this link to get some Big Head Studies
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
A 2005 Virginia DOT study found:
"The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.7mb pdf

In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."
Read a summary
Full article on the Post website

A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
"Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.7mb pdf

A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found:
"Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.5mb pdf

A 1995 Australian Road Research Board study found:
"The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals."
Read a summary
Full copy, 2.4mb pdf

A 1995 Monash University (Australia) study found:
"a simple correlation analysis was undertaken for red light running data in the current study and revealed no significant relationship between the frequency of crashes at RLC and non-RLC sites and differences in red light running behaviour."
Read a summary


many Studies ahve shown increasing the amount of time the light stays yellow reduces accidents
Ill just let you pick from googles many choices on this one
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...t+intersection

Here is a san diego Municipal study Showing affects on increasing yellow light time and its correlating affects on accidents and incidents

http://www.sandiego.gov/police/pdf/photochap6.pdf
Excerpt from above
The most significant change in the number of violations occurred at the intersection of Mission Bay Drive and Grand (1541) where the yellow change interval was extended from 3.1 seconds to 4.7 seconds. This change resulted in an 88-percent decrease in the number of violations. At the five other intersections, the number of violations dropped significantly in response to longer yellow times." ["City of San Diego Enforcement System Review Final Report", PB Farradyne Inc., January 14, 2002, Chapter 6 (Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements", page 78] (there was no public disclosure of the yellow increases when they happened or the results from making them)


Car and Driver said this
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2
In Charlotte, North Carolina, station WBTV had this to say, "Three years, 125,000 tickets, and $6 million in fines later, the number of accidents at intersections in Charlotte has gone down less than one percent. And the number of rear-end accidents, which are much more common, has gone up 15 percent."

In Greensboro, the News & Record reports, "There has not been a drop in the number of accidents caused by red-light violations citywide since the first cameras were installed in February 2001. There were 95 such accidents in Greensboro in 2001, the same number as in 2000. And at the 18 intersections with cameras, the number of wrecks caused by red-light running has doubled."


Your right. Lets Hook up. Ill bet i get you to smash into the back of my car within a day. Then ill roll out screaming whip lash at your silly A$$. Its amazing. I wouldnt want red light cameras in my district they seem to almost double the amount of bad drivers near red lights.

Again you are ohh so wrong on that one too

The following observations were made by analyzing the available data from the city’s 19 operational red light camera intersections:

1. None of the intersections selected for installation of the devices between 1998 and 2000 were listed as high accident intersections by the city between 1997 and 1999, despite the city’s claimed plan to select only intersections for computer–enforcement with a history of high accidents. (See, Attachments "1" to "4").

2. Intersections were selected by the private company that operates the program because they had extremely short yellow light cycle durations. Among the intersection selection criteria listed, the following conditions were found: (1) short light cycle lengths; (2) amber light cycle less than 4.0 seconds; (3) green phase exceeds red phase; (4) high traffic volume; and (5) downhill approaches. (See, Attachment "5").

3. Records indicate that numerous intersections were rejected for computer–enforcement because the yellow light was deemed "too long," resulting in low violation volume. Other reasons given for rejecting potential intersections for computer–enforcement were that the "timing of lights clears out traffic" and that there was "no traffic on yellow" thereby reducing the potential for alleged violations. Another reason given for rejection of potential intersections was "low traffic volume" (See, Attachment "6" and "7").

Above and excerpt from here
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRe...1rlcdt-rep.asp
Google is your freind
Well mine anyways
ETA
Type in terms in google
revenue red light cameras placement
And you get this
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...eras+placement

Chew on that Mr lawful citizen. Oh BTW maybe we should bring back prohibition too

 

national campain to stop red light running
http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/index.html

Hmm a public service group, who is sponsoring these people?
OMG!!!! IT IS THE MANUFACTURERS OF RED LIGHT CAMERAS AND THEY DONT EVEN HIDE IT
http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/h...t-sponsors.htm

Reminds me of the only place police in powers lake wi looked for speeders. Right on the driveway of the Auto insurance guy. Every ticket meant more premiums for him.

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=4053702
Eastside Rep Presi Ortega tells ABC-7 that this is a safety issue and nothing more. There are also questions about whether this could be a "get rich scheme" for car insurance companies, giving them a green light to raise driver premiums, as a result of the increased tickets.

While Rep. Ortega doesn't think would happen,ABC-7 spoke to an Allstate agent who says a red light ticket would go on your driving record and that could certainly raise the cost of the driver's insurance.

 

Silly a$$? Are we getting personal now?

Duker, you're citing studies from all over the world and as many as 11 years old. Irrelevant. This thread is about RLCs in Phoenix and the local studies say rear-enders are up but other accidents are down. Remember that rear-enders are caused by innattentive (bad/poor/marginal) drivers? The problem with red-light runners has been getting worse and, since nobody likes raising taxes, hiring more cops is not going to happen.

In TODAYS world (Phoenix/modern times and not Austrailia in the last century) the companies are hired to help reduce danger at intersections identified through MODERN LOCAL STATISTICS as being some of the most dangerous in the community.

Like most things, there is going to be a learning curve as drivers adjust to new enforcement or laws. You're right about how longer yellows might help but, again, probably only until people adjust to them. Zero tolerance is the only way to fix this. Run the light, pay the ticket, and no points against your license unless your plate turns up as a chronic offender or you're part of the crowd that doesn't pay it because it's not fair/illegal for the city to try to protect their citizens. Sure, some accidents are up but where are fatalities and the actual property loss statistics headed?


Be a jerk about a simple discussion if you want. Are you too immature to defend your point without stooping to insults?

And what does prohibition have to do with trying to adapt new technology to save lives and property??

 

If the ticket is written against the car and not the driver, and if insurance companies track DRIVERS LICENSES and not LICENSE PLATES, how will they justify raising insurance premiums if fatalities, injuries and property losses end up being reduced?

 

bbcrud i'm not sure your considering the big picture. This camera thing is small now but just like many small things will continue to grow. Look around for cameras the next time you walk in the mall or drive down the freeway. They're all over the place. If we are not careful our freedom will be lost. We have already lost our privacy(store cameras, cellular cameras, national phone taps). I'm not saying I support running red lights-not at all. But I do say fight the ticket. By bending over for these ******-you are empowering them even more. These camera tickets are installed to increase revenue-not to protect the people.

"If I loan my car to somebody I'm responsible for their actions in my car." WTF! Do you really believe this? Its a little different than loaning a pistol out. If I lend a saw out to a competent adult and they chop off a body part-I am not responsible for their stupidity. If they did'nt know how to use it they should not have borrowed it. Darwinism has been effectively eliminating idiots for thousands of years. You are not responsible for any of their deaths and niether am I.

 

1) This thread is now in Off-Topic now. And do you think that Phoenix's red lights are completely different than the rest of the US?

2) I don't think there were any red lights last century.

3) You are saying you want Modern Local Statistics....I believe Duker presented you with several statistics if you look up at the top of this page that show the companies put them in the place they will generate the most money, not prevent the most accidents.

 

Okay. One more time. This thread is about Phoenix Red Lights. Duker presented me with a variety of information, none of it from Phoenix.

BTW, I don't know for a fact that Phoenix's RLCs are different than those in other cities. I do make room for the POSSIBILITY that each city could (maybe) deploy the cameras differently.

Info about the PHOENIX RLCs: Click here

Do RLCs work in Phoenix? Gee! I guess they DO ACTUALLY WORK

But.... since we're now in "Off Topic" I went ahead and got some RELEVANT (recent) data on RLCs in the United States of America (No disrespect intended to Austrailia).

Here are some questions one might have about RLCs (If "ONE" were actully inclined to want to learn something about the subject before quoting a bunch of old (and sometimes outdated) information from anti-redlight camera web sites. I added emphasis to the ones that might be more interesting to us all and the link to the answers is at the bottom.

1. What is red light running?
2. Is red light running a big problem?
3. How often do drivers run red lights?
4. What are red light cameras?
5. Isn't conventional police enforcement sufficient?
6. What safety benefits do red light cameras provide?
7. Who runs red lights?
8. Do the cameras photograph every vehicle passing through an intersection?
9. Does someone review the photographs before motorists are ticketed?
10. Do red light cameras violate motorists' privacy?
11. Are special laws needed to allow localities to use red light cameras to cite violators?
12. Are red light camera programs expensive?
13. Isn't the main purpose of red light cameras to make money?
14. Does the American public support the use of red light cameras?
15. Do major U.S. cities use red light cameras?
16. What other countries use red light cameras?

Here are the answers (Yup, actual CURRENT info as of December 2005) Click Here / Learn Something

 

I'm trying to see the big picture. Really, I just disagree with the argument against RLCs. I also disagree with a few of your points.

I'm with you on the loss of privacy but how else do you fix the red-light issue? The cameras are in public places where I legally have no expectation of privacy.

They are not meant to make money, they are meant to deter red light violations. If these cameras were installed to generate revenue then why do they post signs warning people that they are entering a "Red Light Enforcement" area?

Because I am held responsible for my vehicle I will be more likely to put the squeeze on the driver I lent it to to pay the fine and then not loan them my car again in the future.

As for Darwinism... that is not the answer because red-light runners kill and injure others more often than themselves.

 

I don't have all the facts-so it may be a good thing. Not sure. I virtually never run red lights in my tc-it pretty well stops on a dime. When i'm in a truck pulling a heavy trailer though its a different story-my precentage may actually be as high as 50% on last second light changes. I'm just against the government "strangle hold" that is evolving.
1st:intersection observation/control
2nd:freeway observation/control
3rd:rectal implant=24/7 observation/control

 

"Big Brother" is closing in. This was my initial concern for red light cams.

 

I hope both of you wrote to your Congressmen about the Presidents domestic spying policy. That would be a better focus of your concerns for privacy issue.

RLCs are fixed on the intersections they are installed at. There is no (or shouldn't be anyway) reasonable assumption of privacy in a car, on a public street, while breaking the law.

If the government ever turns those cameras around and aims them at my house I'll be the guy in the yellow xB with the rope tied to the pole pulling the cameras down.

Until then, I'm for trying new things to save lives.

 

Well put!
Please make a video of the xb camera thing. Can't wait!

 

My pleasure.

 

I am not saying they are spying on you with the Red Light Cams, but it is just one small step that is giving us less privacy.

It is like an old adage. If you throw a frog into a boiling pot of water, it will jump out. But if you put a frog into the pot and gradually turn up the temp, it will boil to death. They are doing it gradually so we don't get as worked up.

And I am against the President's spying policy. That is a huge infringement on our privacy.

 

All too true and many if not most would think you were crazy if you tried to point it out. Ignorance IS bliss. My recommendations: 1st acquire any firearms you might think you'd like to own before Mr B. is out of office. 2nd acquire hi-cap mags to go with them also(these were actually banned for ten years during Mr C's administration) 3rd enjoy life while you can. Sooner or later some terrorist foriegn or domestic(think OKC) is going to cause the government to lock us down. Sad but true.