Red Light Cameras: O.C. Results Blurry

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ck=1&cset=true
>
> The five Orange County cities that use cameras to catch red light
> violators do not know how effective they are, or even whether they
> generate enough ticket revenue to offset their cost, the Orange County
> Grand Jury reported Tuesday.
>
> The reason: The accounting system used by the county Superior Court
> does not distinguish whether drivers are ticketed by traffic officers
> or by mail through the camera system.
>
> Cameras are used in Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and
> San Juan Capistrano, and in each one, the number of intersection
> accidents have declined since the cameras were installed. But
> officials say they cannot necessarily credit the cameras for the
> improvement.
>
> Nor is it clear whether the cameras are the revenue producers that
> some say they are.
>
> --
> Life is short - drive fast!
> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/

I had read somewhere that rear-end accidents were significantly higher at
camera-equipped intersections. Anyone else heard that?

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:03:12 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
.. .
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...ck=1&cset=true
>>
>> The five Orange County cities that use cameras to catch red light
>> violators do not know how effective they are, or even whether they
>> generate enough ticket revenue to offset their cost, the Orange County
>> Grand Jury reported Tuesday.
>>
>> The reason: The accounting system used by the county Superior Court
>> does not distinguish whether drivers are ticketed by traffic officers
>> or by mail through the camera system.
>>
>> Cameras are used in Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and
>> San Juan Capistrano, and in each one, the number of intersection
>> accidents have declined since the cameras were installed. But
>> officials say they cannot necessarily credit the cameras for the
>> improvement.
>>
>> Nor is it clear whether the cameras are the revenue producers that
>> some say they are.
>>
>> --
>> Life is short - drive fast!
>> http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/
>
>I had read somewhere that rear-end accidents were significantly higher at
>camera-equipped intersections. Anyone else heard that?
>
>

Not from any reliable source.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On 2 Jun 2005 07:56:00 -0700, "dr.benway" >
>wrote:
>
>> What they don't tell you is the large increase of rear end collisions.
>
>Probably because there hasn't been an increase.

That's funny, but the folks that do publish the results have all had increases
in rear end accidents at intersections with red light cameras. That is one
reason why they are so stupid. They are treating the sympton instead of
fixing the cause.

>>These cameras are about the greed of local pols and their anal need to
>>control the lives and destinies of others.
>
>bull****

Check the comments made by the mayor of Washington DC.
---------------
Alex

L Sternn wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:23:52 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:

>>If yellow light interval times were consistent with actual traffic
>>speeds and typical driver reaction times and braking distances, then it
>>becomes much easier to determine whether one can make it through the light.

> That's not an argument against RLC's.

It is. Many surface streets where I live have speed limits of 25 to 35
mph. Most traffic lights have 4 second yellow interval times. We don't
have problems with red light runners here and we don't have RLCs.

The argument against RLCs can be summed up by saying that they're
largely ineffective in reducing the total collision count while
adjusting the yellow phase time is.

>>If someone is worried about running a red light when they see a "stale"
>>green light ahead, then there's something wrong with the traffic light.

> No, it could mean that they're still 15 seconds away from the
> intersection.

If I'm 15 seconds away from the intersection, then I'm not worried about
running a red light. Try again.

>>>I understand how they feel because I find myself tempted to make the
>>>same arguments against speed cameras, which I am against, but I really
>>>have no good argument against them.

>>It's quite easy to find many good arguments against them.

> Then please present just ONE.

Lack of due process. Accusation against the vehicle instead of the
driver. Lack of demerit points against the driver's license (or
whatever the equivalent is in TX).

How many speeding convictions (such as 82 in a 70) does it take to
result in a license suspension in TX anyway?

>>For instance,
>>there are several examples of interstate speed limit reductions in some
>>of the larger cities in TX. IIRC, the limits were reduced from 70 to 55
>>mph. This was because the air quality around those areas didn't meet
>>EPA standards. Of course, it should be noted that EPA models were not
>>accurately determining the primary cause of pollution. For instance,
>>overall NOx emissions are really no different whether traffic is going
>>70 vs 55 mph. Second, pollution could be coming from other areas
>>besides traffic.

> Where's the argument against cameras there?

Where's the argument for them? Why all the fuss about enforcing a law
that has nothing to do with orderly traffic flow or safety?

>>>A little speeding doesn't hurt anyone really won't hold up in court

>>It depends. In areas where speed limits are "prima facie," that
>>argument could be used in court. But the source of the problem are
>>limits that don't reflect actual traffic speeds. That's why there are
>>many people against photo enforcement of speed limits.

> That's an argument for setting the speed limit properly, not against
> photo-radar.

Why go to all the trouble of enforcing a traffic control device that
doesn't meet MUTCD guidelines?

> Why? I simply direct my efforts against being pulled over.

And when those fail? If photo radar is widespread, then how do you
expect to avoid receiving a ticket when faster traffic passes you?

>>>Anyway, it looks like we're all screwed. Cameras are coming and there
>>>appears to be no stopping them.

>>Let them come and see how long they stay.

> They'll stay.

They didn't in Hawaii.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:12:39 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>L Sternn wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:23:52 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>> wrote:
>
>>>If yellow light interval times were consistent with actual traffic
>>>speeds and typical driver reaction times and braking distances, then it
>>>becomes much easier to determine whether one can make it through the light.
>
>> That's not an argument against RLC's.
>
>It is. Many surface streets where I live have speed limits of 25 to 35
>mph. Most traffic lights have 4 second yellow interval times. We don't
>have problems with red light runners here and we don't have RLCs.
>

What makes you think you don't have a problem with red light runners?

>The argument against RLCs can be summed up by saying that they're
>largely ineffective in reducing the total collision count while

What's the basis for that claim?

>adjusting the yellow phase time is.
>
>>>If someone is worried about running a red light when they see a "stale"
>>>green light ahead, then there's something wrong with the traffic light.
>
>> No, it could mean that they're still 15 seconds away from the
>> intersection.
>
>If I'm 15 seconds away from the intersection, then I'm not worried about
>running a red light. Try again.

You said someone - I didn't realize you meant yourself.

Try again.

>
>>>>I understand how they feel because I find myself tempted to make the
>>>>same arguments against speed cameras, which I am against, but I really
>>>>have no good argument against them.
>
>>>It's quite easy to find many good arguments against them.
>
>> Then please present just ONE.
>
>Lack of due process.

You're issued a citation - what's the problem?

> Accusation against the vehicle instead of the
>driver.

You should be responsible for your vehicle.

>Lack of demerit points against the driver's license (or
>whatever the equivalent is in TX).

So now you're complaining that it doesn't punish someone enough?

>
>How many speeding convictions (such as 82 in a 70) does it take to
>result in a license suspension in TX anyway?

I'm not sure as I've never had that problem.

>
>>>For instance,
>>>there are several examples of interstate speed limit reductions in some
>>>of the larger cities in TX. IIRC, the limits were reduced from 70 to 55
>>>mph. This was because the air quality around those areas didn't meet
>>>EPA standards. Of course, it should be noted that EPA models were not
>>>accurately determining the primary cause of pollution. For instance,
>>>overall NOx emissions are really no different whether traffic is going
>>>70 vs 55 mph. Second, pollution could be coming from other areas
>>>besides traffic.
>
>> Where's the argument against cameras there?
>
>Where's the argument for them?

The plethora of red light runners and the carnage they cause.

Oh, sorry. We're onto photo-radar now.

I'm not arguing for photo-radar cameras - I just don't have a valid
argument against them.

I agree that limits should be set higher in most cases. You can make
valid arguments for that.


>Why all the fuss about enforcing a law
>that has nothing to do with orderly traffic flow or safety?

So in your perfect world, there would be no speed limits at all?

>
>>>>A little speeding doesn't hurt anyone really won't hold up in court
>
>>>It depends. In areas where speed limits are "prima facie," that
>>>argument could be used in court. But the source of the problem are
>>>limits that don't reflect actual traffic speeds. That's why there are
>>>many people against photo enforcement of speed limits.
>
>> That's an argument for setting the speed limit properly, not against
>> photo-radar.
>
>Why go to all the trouble of enforcing a traffic control device that
>doesn't meet MUTCD guidelines?

Again, that's an argument for setting the limit properly.

>
>> Why? I simply direct my efforts against being pulled over.
>
>And when those fail?

Well, then I accept the consequences.

>If photo radar is widespread, then how do you
>expect to avoid receiving a ticket when faster traffic passes you?

So now you're arguing that it tickets the wrong vehicle.

If current implementations actually do that, then that is an argument
against current implementations, not the concept of a speed camera.

>
>>>>Anyway, it looks like we're all screwed. Cameras are coming and there
>>>>appears to be no stopping them.
>
>>>Let them come and see how long they stay.
>
>> They'll stay.
>
>They didn't in Hawaii.

Good luck

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:57:36 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>>
>>On 2 Jun 2005 07:56:00 -0700, "dr.benway" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> What they don't tell you is the large increase of rear end collisions.
>>
>>Probably because there hasn't been an increase.
>
>That's funny, but the folks that do publish the results have all had increases
>in rear end accidents at intersections with red light cameras.

How about revoking the license of the people who cause these rear end
collisions?

They obviously aren't safe to be on the road.


> That is one
>reason why they are so stupid. They are treating the sympton instead of
>fixing the cause.
>
>>>These cameras are about the greed of local pols and their anal need to
>>>control the lives and destinies of others.
>>
>>bull****
>
>Check the comments made by the mayor of Washington DC.
>---------------
>Alex

Around 6/3/2005 5:40 PM, L Sternn wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:03:12 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> > wrote:
>
>>I had read somewhere that rear-end accidents were significantly higher at
>>camera-equipped intersections. Anyone else heard that?
>>
>
> Not from any reliable source.


Except, of course, the folks who actually /measure/ that kind of thing...


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:22:43 -0700, Garth Almgren >
wrote:

>Around 6/3/2005 5:40 PM, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:03:12 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I had read somewhere that rear-end accidents were significantly higher at
>>>camera-equipped intersections. Anyone else heard that?
>>>
>>
>> Not from any reliable source.
>
>
>Except, of course, the folks who actually /measure/ that kind of thing...

Then you should have no problem providing actual studies which show
that.

Around 6/3/2005 9:58 PM, L Sternn wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:22:43 -0700, Garth Almgren >
> wrote:
>
>>Around 6/3/2005 5:40 PM, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:03:12 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I had read somewhere that rear-end accidents were significantly higher at
>>>>camera-equipped intersections. Anyone else heard that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not from any reliable source.
>>
>>
>>Except, of course, the folks who actually /measure/ that kind of thing...
>
>
> Then you should have no problem providing actual studies which show
> that.

No problem at all:
<http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/studies.html> has links to
several studies that show an increase in collisions at RLC-equipped
intersections, and several more studies that show that increasing the
yellow time is a far more effective deterrent to red light running.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
> Around 6/3/2005 9:58 PM, L Sternn wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:22:43 -0700, Garth Almgren >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Around 6/3/2005 5:40 PM, L Sternn wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:03:12 -0400, "James C. Reeves"
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I had read somewhere that rear-end accidents were significantly higher
at
> >>>>camera-equipped intersections. Anyone else heard that?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Not from any reliable source.
> >>
> >>
> >>Except, of course, the folks who actually /measure/ that kind of
thing...
> >
> >
> > Then you should have no problem providing actual studies which show
> > that.
>
> No problem at all:
> <http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/studies.html> has links to
> several studies that show an increase in collisions at RLC-equipped
> intersections, and several more studies that show that increasing the
> yellow time is a far more effective deterrent to red light running.
>
>
And do any of those studies discuss the REAL fault of those supposedly
increased rear-end collisions, i.e., the fact that a vehicle was following
too closely to the one in front of it, before the signal even changed and
the driver came to an abrupt stop?

Probably not, even though the recommended three second minimum following
distance works on surface streets as well as the interstates. That is, a
vehicle that slams on the brakes at a yellow light would be far less likely
to be rear ended when the vehicle behind it has a whole three seconds to
come to a controlled stop.

As long as the yellow light is timed at a minimum of three seconds or more
based on the road's posted legal speed limit, I still don't see how a
rear-end collision is the red light camera installation's fault. All the red
light camera does is wait one second after the light turns red, then takes
snapshots of anyone who crosses the limit line... and some newer ones can
take 12 seconds of continous video.