City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
A recent audit of the red-light cameras in Stockton, California showed that accidents significantly increased at intersections where the ticket cameras were installed. In contrast, intersection crashes were down overall at intersections without the cameras. With those facts in mind, it’s clear that removing the cameras is the right thing to do if the city is concerned about safety.
However, the city has decided to take a different approach. They want even more cameras installed. It seems like an inexplicable decision until you look at how much money each ticket brings in. A violation carries a $349.50 fine and the city, county, state, and the camera manufacturer all get a cut. That’s a lot of money that would disappear from the budget if the cameras were removed.
Even so, you wouldn’t think that they could get away with this kind of blatant disregard for the safety of drivers without the media calling them on it. Unfortunately, the local papers have bought into their spin. The Stockton Record ran this headline: “Report says red-light cameras working.” But in the text of the article they concede that “the number of car accidents at [camera-enforced] intersections has increased since cameras were installed, from 160 crashes one year before installation to 177 accidents one year after”.
It hardly seems like that qualifies as “working.” Let us know what you think.
Additional coverage from TheNewspaper.com
Stockton Ticket Camera Audit Report (PDF)
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Don’t forget the fees that many cities charge for having Emergency Services come to the scene of an accident. More collisions = More fees.
I got ticketed at one of these red light cameras for going through a yellow light here in NYC. The next time I passed the camera array, the light turned yellow. What do you think I did? I hit the brakes. An uninsured driver rear-ended me, totaled both our cars and put me in the hospital. These cameras are not there for “public safety”. The politicians would rather dance in your blood while you get injured. What’s wrong with just increasing the yellow light signal and the time both lights are red? Simple – there’s no money in that.
[...] red light cameras increase accidents. Stockton, CA’s own data comes to the same conclusion, yet they want to add more. Even the local newspaper supports more red light cameras despite acknowledging the increase in [...]
Stephen really makes the best points here. He profves it with studies, and facts. Cameras flashing brightly all over in peoples faces are a distraction. In my city they installed 8 of these, and the exact same thing has been reported as well. It’s the flashing lights from the camera light that is the problem here.
When I was in China not too long ago I noticed that, rather than following the U.S. practice of spending money to put up cameras to “catch” errant drivers running traffic signals that give 3-4 sec yellow warnings, they are installing digital countdown timers that are coupled with generous yellow warnings to inform drivers of how much time is left before the light is going to change – the countdown timer starts as soon as the light turns green.
It appears the Chinese have learned that a successful economy can be built without imposing criminal penalties ones own population or engaging in self-serving jingoistic exploits abroad.
Sure, cameras cause plenty of accidents.
I don’t want to put up with the wanton criminality of the local city councils, and corrupt courts/judges in fighting illegal red light cameras. They violate my rights, which are protected by the 5th amendment to the US Constitution-no if’s, ands, or butts about it.
So, when the light goes yellow, I am on the brakes as hard as it takes to stop at the line, no farther. If this entails braking with 1g of peak deceleration, so be it. Many semi-tractor trailer, and pickup/SUVs, and cars can not even hit 1g deceleration with the tires they have, or even average 0.75g braking.
I have not been rear ended [yet] and even if I am, I would not be at fault.
fascism.
Why not eliminate the issue altogether and start replacing all four way intersections with rotaries? This speeds things up in intersections a lot.
The disparity in the mindsets of people all on the same road at the same time is frightening. The rigid adherance to the speed limit by the paranoid, the self appointed traffic nazi bent on controlling traffic flow from the left lane and the delusional driver who, wrapped in self rightiousness, is convinced of their safety by strictly following the rules.
Many of the respondants here can fit into one of these catagories. Of course, there are the “scofflaws” but worse are those that cannot actually drive, those that should use public transportation so they can use cell phones, eat, dream or whatever without having to actually concentrate on such mundane things as other drivers.
This is as it has been since the advent of the automatic transmission and air conditioning.
I wonder how many of you would deal with what’s occuring in many European cities: They are removing all traffic control signs and light, leaving, in most cases, only one rule— courtesy.
cameras do not “cause” crashes.
1>driving too fast, 2>following too close or 3>not paying attention cause crashes.
It doesn’t matter how quick or unexpected the driver in front of me stops because he is afraid of a rlc. If I’m not doing one of the 3 things mentioned, or under the influence, I’m not going to rear end someone.
So maybe these rlc’s are trading one evil for another, ie rear end collisions instead of angle (t-bone) collissions. But for me personally, I’d rather take my chances in a rear end collossion that be struck in the driver/ passenger door by a car speeding to beat the light.
Simple. There’s an easy way to settle this debate about revenue or safety. Have all the revenue raised from these violations given to the school district for drivers education programs for our future young drivers. IF this is NOT about money then there should be no objections. See how many jurisdictions take you up on this offer. What to take bets?
It is funny how desparate the government has been to get into our wallets. This red lit camera bit is just another good example. In the Seattle area, the traffic camera violations are $100. And it looks like the SoCal area has an even more beligerant amount to be charged.
But then again, I wonder just how much tax revenue is being collected from the rear end collisions that these traffic cameras cause. Perhaps the insurance industry should start taking legal action to make it Not worth the government’s while to get into everyone’s wallet.
I sorry you feel that way Dave. But the Truth is they are plus 5. Whether you want to believe me or call me names is your choice. Your typical crash is plus 5. Unless you are doing a hail mary left turn as the light is cylcling, you are not going to get t-bone under a second. TTI proved that.
Yellow light time is the primary reason for high violation rates. Here is a link form the NMA own site. http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/yellow-light-timing-myths/
As for proof that they cause accidents, why don’t you check out the NMA’s own site. http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/studies/ I didn’t make this up, and neither did the people who work hard at the NMA. RLC are causing wrecks. I am sorry you can’t see that. But when the 2007 V-Dot showed not just overall increases in Rear Ends, Injuries, but overall increase in angles. I wouldn’t call that a success. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp
And it is not the only one. The best the IIHS can come up with is Oxnard, which a summary report on this web site stated “The 2001 Oxnard Crash Study conclusions seem based upon questionable assumptions” http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/critique-iihs-oxnard-study/
If you are so convinced your are right, why don’t you call TX activist Greg Mauz, his number is in the data base. He has written two books on it.
If red light cameras cause too many accidents then make the intersections all-way stops. Tada. No more crashes.
By the by, incompetent drivers cause accidents – by following too closely or closing at too high a rate.
About Stephan’s reply: all it takes is one-second. Forty miles an hour is almost sixty feet a second. That puts the car dead center in many intersections. If the car approaching the light that turns green is still at speed when an idiot trys to floor it through the yellow, well – it’s a pretty gruesome sight.
Yellow light time is a lame excuse. The yellow light will always turn red without notice, no matter how long it is yellow.
The better red light camera systems record 10 seconds of video. If the car entered on the yellow, the risk of prosecution is pretty low.
Correlation is not causation.
166 crashes to 177. Isn’t that like a 6 percent increase? That seems low to be jumping up and down on the panic button. What was the increase in traffic on those roads? I would suspect the intersections for the cameras were problem areas anyway. The cameras weren’t causing the crashes were they? Were they so big they obscured the red, yellow, and green light? The increase in crashes at a troublesome interesection where a camera was installed doesn’t mean the camera caused the crash. Do a little more research and use some common sense.
The actual causes are listed in the Mauz report, almost half were DUI/Drugs, hardly something that is going to be solved by a camera.
There is more than enough evidence to show that they are causing accidents on this very web site. I am sorry if you don’t agree with me, but the facts are that Cameras do cause accidents. The facts are that the majority of the violations are under a second. Most the direct result of yellow light time in the 3 to low 4 second range. That is not myth, but fact.
Anyhow Penrith, I wish you well even if we disagree on this issue.
The cameras are causing the accidents? That is really nonsense. Stop stewing about getting caught running lights and go after the actual cause of the accidents.
Work, sure, right. The more they spin the worse they look. I will really enjoy this when the house of cards RLC were built on comes a falling down!
When the majority of the t-bones are plus 5 and the majority of the violations are below a second. (Ironically reduced by longer yellow) They can keep trying to lie, but the more they do the more tortured is there argument!