Red Light Cameras: O.C. Results Blurry

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:19:08 -0700, Garth Almgren >
wrote:

>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.


Obviously, it will take me some time to give a decent rebuttal to
those, but that website certainly does seem to have an agenda.

Some of the studies are flawed because there were other factors
involved such as manipulation of light timing and it's disturbing that
in most cases, these are outsourced to companies who are interested in
revenue generation rather than safety.

At any rate, from one of the studies:

|First, they characterized drivers into four types:
|1) Reasonable/Prudent: an attentive, cautious driver
|2) Inattentive: may be distracted by children in the car, cell phone, or other reasons
|3) Reckless: does not show proper regard for their own or others’ safety
|4) Mistaken (Judgment Error)


I suggest we revoke the licenses of all but the first category. That
should reduce accidents a great deal.

"L Sternn" > wrote
> Garth Almgren >

>>>>>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.
>
>
> Obviously, it will take me some time to give a decent rebuttal to
> those, but that website certainly does seem to have an agenda.

Try the VA DOT: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> And do any of those studies discuss the REAL fault of those supposedly
> increased rear-end collisions,

So first you deny the fact, then you deny the existence of research
demonstrating the fact, then you bitch about the source of the research
when it's presented to you, and now that its bona fides can't be
questioned, you claim the researchers craftily omitted the "real" facts.
Can't say that does much for your credibility, Rouse...

> 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.

Choice A: Make and enforce laws and regulations in a manner known and
shown to minimize crash frequency and severity.

Choice B: Make and enforce laws and regulations arbitrarily, and when
crashes don't get reduced, thump a book and preach about how it's drivers'
fault for not behaving as you think they should.

You, uh, really have to think about this one?

> 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.

You are arguing what you think theoretically should/could/might/must be
the case. Unfortunately, you're doing so in the face of what *IS* the
case, which -- since it differs from your theoretical case -- means you
lose.

In article >,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> <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?

So we have a system that converts accidents caused by one type of
driver error into a accidents caused by another type of driver error.
How is this helping?

BTW, I've been rear-ended twice and in neither accident was the
rear driver following too closely. Reaction time is variable,
even for a single driver. Sometimes you get unlucky. The harder
you make people brake, the more rear-end collisions you get.
That's inevitable. You can jump up and down and point your
finger and shout "you're not perfect like me!" and they will
still happen. You can file criminal charges and threaten
license revocation after every rear-end collision, as is done
in some parts of Virginia, and they will still happen.

--
John Carr )

"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > wrote in
:

> "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?

The REAL fault is not "following too closely",it's failure to pay
attention.(rear driver)

"Following too closely" is what enables the collision to happen(a
precursor),WHEN the rear driver does NOT PAY ATTENTION.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(John F. Carr) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>"Garth Almgren" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> <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?
>
> So we have a system that converts accidents caused by one type of
> driver error into a accidents caused by another type of driver error.
> How is this helping?
>
> BTW, I've been rear-ended twice and in neither accident was the
> rear driver following too closely. Reaction time is variable,
> even for a single driver. Sometimes you get unlucky. The harder
> you make people brake, the more rear-end collisions you get.
> That's inevitable. You can jump up and down and point your
> finger and shout "you're not perfect like me!" and they will
> still happen. You can file criminal charges and threaten
> license revocation after every rear-end collision, as is done
> in some parts of Virginia, and they will still happen.
>

Both times I've been rear-ended,the driver was not paying attention.
The 1st one,her MJ-joint fell out of the car when she opened her door.B-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> > And do any of those studies discuss the REAL fault of those supposedly
> > increased rear-end collisions,
>
> So first you deny the fact, then you deny the existence of research
> demonstrating the fact, then you bitch about the source of the research
> when it's presented to you, and now that its bona fides can't be
> questioned, you claim the researchers craftily omitted the "real" facts.
> Can't say that does much for your credibility, Rouse...
>
So can you point me to a study that actually addresses too close following
distances as the root cause of a rear end collision? Otherwise, my point
stands that the data point was omitted, whether intentionally or
unintentionally.

It really is that simple--if one rear-ends someone, and no sudden lane
change is involved, nor did they pull out in front of anyone from a
driveway, nor did someone turn in front of them at the last second from an
intersection... the answer is clear--they were following too close for their
current rate of speed, regardless of whether they were driving at a legal
speed or even worse, if they were speeding.

The only possible argument in against the red light camera is a yellow light
that is too short. Beyond that, absent of any of the dangerous driving
criteria I just mentioned, it is NOT the fault of the red light camera for a
rear-end collison, it is the fault of the following car's driver.

It cannot be denied that drivers frequently follow so close, sometimes their
headlights are not even visible in the front car's rear view mirror. Those
that back off just a little, then the headlights can be seen in the rearview
mirror but not any road between the two cars.

As the cliche goes, it's not rocket science. The primary fault is with the
drivers, and even just two minutes of video on a busy street with traffic
flow can easily prove that the drivers are the problem.

> > 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.
>
> Choice A: Make and enforce laws and regulations in a manner known and
> shown to minimize crash frequency and severity.
>
> Choice B: Make and enforce laws and regulations arbitrarily, and when
> crashes don't get reduced, thump a book and preach about how it's drivers'
> fault for not behaving as you think they should.
>
> You, uh, really have to think about this one?
>
Choice C: accept that drivers are truly incapable of driving legally and
safely in masses, and then implement technological solutions to rectify that
and keep the violators in check.

Based on this, which can be easily proven on any so-called "busy" street
when traffic is in motion--red light cameras are a good start, photo
ticketing is the next logical evolution, and perhaps newer cars beyond that
will have some sort of proximity sensors that will force engine braking when
a vehicle is too close for their current rate of speed?

Who knows? Still, it's obvious that if the drivers cannot regulate their
speed or travel and following distances, allowing the technology keep them
in check and levy the necessary fines if they still go out of their way to
commit traffic violations is the right answer.

> > 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.
>
> You are arguing what you think theoretically should/could/might/must be
> the case. Unfortunately, you're doing so in the face of what *IS* the
> case, which -- since it differs from your theoretical case -- means you
> lose.
>

Well, seeing as how the camera just waits for a violation, the other
problems--not withstanding an improperly timed yellow light--are obviously
with the driver. Someone once posted a link to a set of recommended yellow
light times. As long as those times are satisfied, and again, absent of any
unsafe driving criteria, the fault MUST remain with the following car's
driver.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:19:20 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>"L Sternn" > wrote
>> Garth Almgren >
>
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Obviously, it will take me some time to give a decent rebuttal to
>> those, but that website certainly does seem to have an agenda.
>
>Try the VA DOT: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp

Yes, that's an example of a flawed study that didn't take into account
changes in yellow time - or even volume of traffic.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Jim Yanik wrote:

> The REAL fault is not "following too closely",it's failure to pay
> attention.(rear driver) "Following too closely" is what enables the
> collision to happen(a precursor),WHEN the rear driver does NOT PAY
> ATTENTION.

Sure, OK. But this still leaves us with a very easy choice:

Choice A: Make and enforce laws and regulations in a manner known and
shown to minimize crash frequency and severity.

Choice B: Make and enforce laws and regulations arbitrarily, and when
crashes don't get reduced, thump a book and preach about how it's drivers'
fault for not behaving as you think they should.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> > Choice A: Make and enforce laws and regulations in a manner known and
> > shown to minimize crash frequency and severity.
> >
> > Choice B: Make and enforce laws and regulations arbitrarily, and when
> > crashes don't get reduced, thump a book and preach about how it's
> > drivers' fault for not behaving as you think they should.
> >
> > You, uh, really have to think about this one?
> >
> Choice C: accept that drivers are truly incapable of driving legally and
> safely in masses, and then implement technological solutions to rectify
> that and keep the violators in check.

Your "Choice C" is nothing more than my Choice A, restated.

Wrong choice.