Traffic deaths up in cities that turn off red-light cameras

[cpzilliacus]

AP via WTOP Radio: Traffic deaths up in cities that turn off red-light cameras

Red-light cameras are widely hated, but a new study says getting rid of them can have fatal consequences.

Traffic deaths from red-light-running crashes go up by nearly a third after cities turn off cameras designed to catch motorists in the act, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute is funded by auto insurers.

While cities continue to add cameras at intersections with traffic signals, at least 158 communities have ended their red-light camera programs in the past five years, the study said.

Researchers compared trends in annual crash rates in 14 cities that had ended their camera programs with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their camera programs.

They found that, after adjusting for other factors, red-light-running crashes went up 30 percent.

[jeffandnicole]

"We are really going to screw with the data to show as best we can why red light camera companies are just made up of poor people trying to make an honest living", says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

While 158 communities have ended their red light camera program in the past 5 years, we searched long and hard and found 14 where the crash rate went up, which will be used to prove that life as we know it will be extinct within months if this trend continues

We would provide you with the data, but the truck carrying the information went thru a red light and was broadsided by an environmentally conscious bicyclist.  The truck erupted into flames, and we lost all the data.

[SidS1045]

AP via WTOP Radio: Traffic deaths up in cities that turn off red-light cameras

Red-light cameras are widely hated, but a new study says getting rid of them can have fatal consequences.

Traffic deaths from red-light-running crashes go up by nearly a third after cities turn off cameras designed to catch motorists in the act, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute is funded by auto insurers.

While cities continue to add cameras at intersections with traffic signals, at least 158 communities have ended their red-light camera programs in the past five years, the study said.

Researchers compared trends in annual crash rates in 14 cities that had ended their camera programs with those in 29 cities in the same regions that continued their camera programs.

They found that, after adjusting for other factors, red-light-running crashes went up 30 percent.

And again, a "news" organization reproduces someone's press release without bothering to find out the real facts.

IIHS is a long-time shill for the insurance industry, and never met a scheme to bilk motorists out of their money that they didn't like.

They aren't even particularly subtle: "...after adjusting for other factors..."  Yeah, right.

[Avalanchez71]

We have a state rep in TN that went around and told folks that if they receive a red light ticket in Tennessee that was enforced by an unmanned camera to just rip it up.  There is no practical way in TN to actually enforce the non payment.  The municaplity is barred from have a ding put on the credit score.  The municaplity would actualy have to take you to civil court and sue you for it.

[hbelkins]

We have a state rep in TN that went around and told folks that if they receive a red light ticket in Tennessee that was enforced by an unmanned camera to just rip it up.  There is no practical way in TN to actually enforce the non payment.  The municaplity is barred from have a ding put on the credit score.  The municaplity would actualy have to take you to civil court and sue you for it.

Tennessee's legislature just ought to sack up and ban those God-awful revenue grab mechanisms.

In between segments kissing Hillary's rather amble backside and bashing Trump, the CBS Evening News tonight ran this story. Tucked into the tail end of it (no pun intended whatsoever) was a mention in passing that rear-end collisions seem to increase in communities where red light cameras are used.

[8.Lug]

Unless all of the cameras and signage were removed from every intersection after they were "turned-off," there's no possible way to correlate the accidents with them.

I smell bullsh!t everywhere.

[freebrickproductions]

Didn't Mississippi outlaw red light cameras state-wide? If so, then they probably could've drawn their study from the places in Mississippi that used to have red light cameras...

[SidS1045]

Massachusetts de facto bans them, since state law here is that a citation must be handed directly to the vehicle operator by a police officer at the time of the alleged violation, with the one exception made for automated toll (E-ZPass) violations.  There were several attempts over the years to legislate "no-fix" (i.e., mailed) citations, but they all failed.

[cl94]

Massachusetts de facto bans them, since state law here is that a citation must be handed directly to the vehicle operator by a police officer at the time of the alleged violation, with the one exception made for automated toll (E-ZPass) violations.  There were several attempts over the years to legislate "no-fix" (i.e., mailed) citations, but they all failed.

This is why speed cameras are banned with 2 exceptions in New York (school zones and E-ZPass lanes). The latter can't actually issue tickets. With both speed and red light cameras, fines are fixed and significantly lower than if someone is pulled over for the same offense.

Fun fact: if pulled over for speeding in New York, the cop running radar has to be the one writing the ticket, else it can be fought in court and thrown out. Again, this is an extension of the above.

[jeffandnicole]

NJ had a 5 year trial for their cameras, after which time the cameras were shut off and a report was to be issued. 19 months later, and still no report. Camera companies, hoping for a quick report on their favor, had started giving up and have removed the equipment at some intersections. At others, the equipment had been hit and knocked over. It would lay on the side of the road for months before finally being removed.

[roadfro]

Massachusetts de facto bans them, since state law here is that a citation must be handed directly to the vehicle operator by a police officer at the time of the alleged violation, with the one exception made for automated toll (E-ZPass) violations.  There were several attempts over the years to legislate "no-fix" (i.e., mailed) citations, but they all failed.

Nevada bans red light cameras as well, as well as other traffic enforcement cameras. State law (NRS 484A.600) prohibits governmental agencies from using photo or video devices to gather evidence to be used for issuance of traffic violations, unless such device is held in the hand or installed in a vehicle/facility of a law enforcement agency.

[US 41]

We have a state rep in TN that went around and told folks that if they receive a red light ticket in Tennessee that was enforced by an unmanned camera to just rip it up.  There is no practical way in TN to actually enforce the non payment.  The municaplity is barred from have a ding put on the credit score.  The municaplity would actualy have to take you to civil court and sue you for it.

Have you ever been through Union City, TN? That is a speed and red light camera nightmare.

[Tom958]

Wow.

I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.

[hotdogPi]

Wow.

I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.

They don't save lives. This study was intentionally biased to begin with.

[UCFKnights]

Wow.

I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.

Because red light cameras in some areas have been shown to sometimes cause more rear end accidents, and the vast majority of tickets are within a second of the light changing, so the "running" of the light had no safety issue at all. Its also been shown not to be the most effective way to save lives by a long shot. It has nothing to do with the fact that the companies operating them are skimming most of the money.

[hbelkins]

Wow.

I suppose I'll be cursed and vilified for saying this, but so freaking what if "red light cameras are a scam" if they save lives? Is the magnitude of the money supposedly skimmed off by scamsters really worth getting people killed over? Not to mention those who are maimed, or the damage to property, or the costs of law enforcement and emergency medical responses to accidents that shouldn't even have occurred.

Lots of things have the potential to save lives. That doesn't mean that we should do all of those things.

[noelbotevera]

Do these "reporters" have any idea what they are saying?

Okay, fine, people will complain about a 12 year old's opinions, but I'll be nice and share my thoughts.

Red light cameras are a scam. Whatever people say that they make places "safer" is simply not true. They're just a way to make people hate traffic enforcement (and strategies) even more. That's probably the most astute way I can put it. I'm okay with red lights, if they're used the right way (such as transitioning to a green wave to a stop light so side streets don't become parking lots). But if people say that there should be a traffic light smack dab in some ridiculous place, and there should be enforcement with red light cameras, that is a colossal no-no. It doesn't help with safety, it's just to meet dumb status quotas thanks to dumb people. That's not even a convincing argument.

It'll only stop if we get better driver's education. It's been a huge problem in this country, just because drivers have no idea of what a car does and how to use it.

[Bruce]

Controversial opinion time:

In a large city's downtown, I think every intersection should have cameras and enforcement. Box blocking is a huge issue, red light-running happens and kills people (especially when you have cycle lanes that cross over with turning traffic), bus and HOV lanes are routinely violated, taxis/Ubers use just about every curb to stop at..

Honestly, the penalties for these kinds of behaviors need to be harsher. Think suspensions, not just fines that can be blown off.

Drivers haven't been properly educated, so they need to learn through enforcement.

[Duke87]

The problem with draconian enforcement is when people quickly realize it exists they overcompensate and cause other problems. For example, there are a few intersections on Long Island that are frequently the source of traffic congestion for no other reason than because drivers know there is a camera on a hair trigger there and approach the intersection real slowly with their foot ready to slam their brakes the instant the light turns yellow.

Humans are pretty much guaranteed to behave irrationally if you instill fear in them. They will become highly focused on avoiding the thing they fear to the point of being oblivious to other problems. This strategy is, therefore, ultimately counterproductive - drivers need to feel comfortable and confident behind the wheel or they will not drive safely.

Tell people "your license will be suspended if we catch you blocking the box" and I guarantee you you will start to see a lot of the opposite problem: drivers getting paranoid and approaching intersections super timidly to make extra sure that there is more than enough space for them on the other side.

You can't hammer antisocial behaviors out of existence by dishing out harsh disproportionate penalties. It never works and there are always unintended consequences.

[Bruce]

I'd love it if drivers were a bit more timid when driving around people in a dense city. That's what they should be doing, since the environment will require a lot more attention than what they currently give. A timid driver won't try and creep forward into the crosswalk, blocking it and forcing mobs of pedestrians to play chicken with oncoming traffic, nor would they try to block the bike lane when it crosses over.

[cl94]

Of course, in some areas, the cameras did produce improved safety. Take Columbus, OH. Before the red light cameras went in, there was a rash of injury crashes, mostly T-bones from people not stopping at red lights. Cameras went in and, while rear-end collisions did increase, the increase was PDO crashes and injury crashes went way down. Overall, a net improvement for safety.

[7/8]

I think all red light camera intersections should have the pedestrian countdown signals (assuming this isn't mandatory already) to help drivers know when the light will change.

I have no problems with them, but sometimes I feel the yellow cycle is simply not long enough. One example for me is Fairway Rd at the Hwy 8 EB ramps in Kitchener. Along Fairway Rd, the intersection is so long, and the yellow too short, that people run the red constantly. They would be rich if they ever put a red-light camera there without lengthening the yellow.

[Duke87]

I'd love it if drivers were a bit more timid when driving around people in a dense city. That's what they should be doing, since the environment will require a lot more attention than what they currently give. A timid driver won't try and creep forward into the crosswalk, blocking it and forcing mobs of pedestrians to play chicken with oncoming traffic, nor would they try to block the bike lane when it crosses over.

No, but a timid driver might be too busy focusing on whether they have enough room to make a turn without blocking the box to notice the cyclist coming up behind them which they then cream as they go to make their turn.

A timid driver might be so afraid to venture a few inches into a bus lane while passing an unloading truck that they end up sideswiping it instead - or stop and try to unsafely back up or make a U-turn rather than go around it.

A timid driver might, because they are not proceeding into an intersection when they should, indirectly cause a collision when someone behind them attempts to pass them aggressively and crashes into someone while doing so.

Timid does not equal paying more attention. Timid, generally, equals being overly focused on one thing to the point of not paying enough attention to other things. Hence, draconian enforcement having unintended consequences.

Said unintended consequences can even stretch more broadly beyond the road. Let's say I'm a UPS driver, I got caught blocking the box and I got my license suspended for it. Well, there goes my job. And probably any hope of me ever getting a similar one, since they are going to see that on my record. So now that my livelihood has been taken away, I am statistically more likely to start abusing drugs or alcohol, to abandon my family and run off, to turn to a life of crime as a source of money, to commit suicide, or even to grab a gun and go on a shooting spree. All for the heinous crime of entering an intersection without being able to exit it before the light changed.

Talk about a cure that's worse than the disease.

And guess what: people are still going to block the box, because they are human and will sometimes do so as an honest mistake even if they are not doing it deliberately. Some people, meanwhile, will continue doing it deliberately because the threat of a suspended license does not scare them. After all, plenty of cases DUI, reckless driving, etc. still happen despite a suspended license being a consequence of getting caught.

[UCFKnights]

I don't think people would have a problem with the automated enforcement/cameras if they believed it was actually making them safer and they don't get a ticket when they feel nobody is getting hurt or really violating the intentions of the law. If the red light cameras required the yellows to get extended by a second before getting implemented, give no tickets during the first 1 second of red (during the all red period), and do not give right turn on red tickets unless there is an actual no turn on red restriction, I don't think you'd see the protests and people wanting them gone. Of course, then the ticket companies can't make enough money off them to make a profit.

[hbelkins]

If red light enforcement is so darn important to the protection of life and limb, then police officers should be stationed at the traffic lights.

Or just reset the signal timing to show red in all directions for five seconds or so when the lights change. Costs nothing and would serve the same purpose.