City Manipulates Report To Make Ticket Cameras Appear Useful
How do you make a 17.9% increase in crashes look like a success? Make up a formula that says so.
A recent report by a citizen of Las Cruces, New Mexico illustrates how far cities are willing to go to protect their ticket camera programs.
At the Las Cruces City Council Work Session, there was a 9-month update on the city’s red light camera program. The results show that total crashes at three intersections have gone up from 39 before the cameras to 46 after the cameras.
However, the city wants to keep the ticket camera program and they know that reporting those kind of results could jeopardize its future so they decided to create a formula that shows that the cameras have improved safety in the city.
This is a screenshot of the results that they presented, along with the formula they created called the Severity Index (SI):
As you can see, even using their made-up formula, two of the three intersections were worse off with cameras. They also failed to include data from a fourth intersection — possibly because the results were even more damning.
Furthermore, the single fatal crash that swings the formula in favor of the cameras was a drunk driving fatality that would have occurred with or without the cameras.
Ultimately, the only statistically-significant change from pre-camera to post-camera is a 36% increase in property damage crashes.
While this report out of Las Cruces is a minor example of statistical manipulation, it’s important to take any report from a ticket-camera city with a grain of salt. They have a vested interest in keeping the cameras so they’re likely to only present statistics that make the cameras look effective.
Another city has had enough, but Redflex is resisting a straightforward request to take their products back – unless the city coughs up over a half-million dollars. Note the 92% reduction in straight ahead violations with 1.0 seconds more yellow. Note the lack of any provable safety benefits from cameras in four years. Note that the cameras at only four intersections generated $12 to $14 million dollars, with no real safety benefits. How DO you spell SCAM ? Note the pitiful lack of comprehension of the issue by the Public Works Director.
California: Longer Yellows Nearly Eliminate Violations
Posted: 19 Feb 2010 12:02 AM PST
Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia succeeded last week in blocking efforts to end red light camera ticketing in Loma Linda, California. While several members of the city council expressed a desire to uproot the automated ticketing machines, Redflex insisted that could not be done unless the city paid $534,558 in early termination penalties. The council declined to take any action at its February meeting.
The problems began after the city extended the duration of yellow lights in November. This engineering enhancement reduced the number of straight through violations to drop to near zero with the consequence that only citations for rolling right-hand turns remained. With a pricetag of $456 for each of these citations, the council had been hit with complaints about such a stiff fine for a type of violation that does not cause accidents.
"I have received a number of complaints and emails from individuals," Councilman Ovidu Popescu said. "They teach you in business that for one complaint, that's at least ten individuals who are very upset."
Popescu and Councilman Rhodes Rigsby led the charge to terminate the camera contract immediately because the program enraged constituents without providing any safety benefit.
"I'm not sure the statistics when it comes to auto accidents — it doesn't show a decrease in accidents," Rigsby said. "If we're going to fine our visitors and our citizens $12 or $14 million over four years, we should at least expect a safety benefit, and I just don't see it."
The council, on the other hand, was extremely pleased with the results of lengthening yellow lights by one second in November. The number of left-turn violations dropped 80 to 85 percent from about 240 monthly violations to about 25 or 30 a month immediately after the change. Straight through violations were reduced 92 percent.
"Lengthening yellow lights has produced a tremendous drop in violations," Rigsby said. "The statistics from January are very telling. For four intersections, there were five straight through violations in total. That is tremendous improvement in safety. We're talking about huge success of lengthening the yellow lights… We could have had that safety with lengthening the yellow four years ago instead of installing red light cameras."
Councilman Floyd Petersen wanted to know why city staff never tried lengthening yellow before.
"Councilman Rigsby brought up the issue and pushed on it really hard," Petersen said. "We have a whole profession out there called traffic engineers. We pay these people a lot of money to figure out the best way to set up the lights. Where are these people? Why haven't they ever suggested lengthening the yellow light? What's the deal? They aren't being paid off by the camera people, are they?"
City staff defended the idea of keeping the cameras and endorsed short yellows.
"If you lengthen the yellow light, you reduce the green light," Public Works Director T. Jarb Thaipejr said. "So then I will get a call from someone who said, 'I waited so long at the red light.' The whole idea of traffic engineering is to move the traffic."
Popescu vowed to bring early termination to a vote next month. The contract will expire on its own in December.
15 states now ban scameras or have restrictions that make them impractical to use.
AK, AR, IN, ME, MI, MN, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, SC, UT, WV & WI. There are bills in process that would do the same in SD and TN, and one is about to be introduced in MO. A number of cities now ban them or have had them removed following public up-or-down votes.
This scam is going to go away in most places, it is just a matter of time and continued effort from those who understand the nature of the scam.
It is VERY likely that retiming the yellow intervals at these intersections for the actual 85th percentile speed of approaching vehicles under good conditions would reduce the red light violation numbers, and likely the accident numbers as well. Redflex would have a cow because proper engineering almost always kills the red light scamera cash cow.
Jim Walker from Michigan is back. If you would have looked at the link that I provided you would see that yellow light timing often has little affect on how many cars keep going through a red light after it turns red. In the video there was at least 3 cars in a row that all went through the red light. Any yellow light timing you have would not change that. Face it Jim, you and others here promote unsafe driving habits and speed limits or red lights or any other safety requlation on our highways is not followed any more because you said you do not need to follow such laws any more.
Randy100 is not correct that proper yellows reduce red light violations by large percentages. The ITE, among many other sources, has proven that correct yellows are the single most effective way to sharply reduce red light violations. People who read these blogs and then link to the unbiased and academic traffic safety research studies will quickly conclude that proper engineering is the answer to most traffic safety issues. I agree that such bad driving as shown in the video clip with two or three drivers going into the intersection on red was less common 30 years ago and I have driven since 1960. The reason that such bad driving was less common then was that most traffic lights were properly timed, something you cannot claim today. Randy needs to re-read the example on the NMA website where the yellow on a high speed approach on US-50 was lengthened from a too-short 4.0 seconds to a proper 5.5 seconds and the intersection saw red light violations drop by 94%. Over time, they stayed down at least 90%. Engineering is the key Randy, not rants or oppressive enforcement versus drivers caught in technical violations that would not occur with correct engineering.
Jim you still do not have a clue. You say that everything will be corrected if you just extend the yellow light timing everything will be fine. Again if you remember the video it would not have mattered what the yellow light timing was. Reports do not always tell the truth but it is hard to not see the truthfull information shown in a video.
I read the information on US50 that you are talking about. That shows how you and others here are stupid enough to believe statistics presented on this site. If you would do futher research you would find that even if yellow light times are not changed the number of red light tickets go down drastically over time because most people are smart enough to not keep getting tickets so they learn to stop. There is many references to this and some cities even took cameras down because they were not needed any more because people were stopping. If you and others here would question things once in a while that are presented here and on thenewspaper.com you would see that the facts are so slanted on these two sites only idiots would believe them.
Readers who believe in science, and not the "fear and superstition" methods of achieving traffic safety know whether Randy100 or Jim Walker, the NMA, the ITE and other scientific approaches are more correct. I corresponded with the principal person who pushed hard enough to get the light fixed on US-50 and the 4.0 was WAY below the proper yellow interval for the actual speeds involved. Real science and proper engineering truly work, regardless of Randy's uninformed rants that this is not the way to fix things.
YES, of course, red light violations will go down with the presence of scameras, but NOT by as much as they go down with correct yellows. A typical red light scamera program will reduce red light violations by 25% to 50%. Correct yellow programs typically START with at least 50% reductions and normally achieve much higher reductions than that.
And, for what it is worth, I would trust the ITE research on the subject far more than Randy's "opinion".
Jim you make so much of your engineering principals, how much intelligence does it take to set a yellow light? You say that there are so many yellow lights that are mistimed. Name them? I do not disagree that there may be a handfull of mistimed lights but what you do is get the handful fixed and and move on. There are not hundreds of mistimed lights. As I said before where is your list? NMA finds something that was wrong years ago and bring it up time and time again even after it was changed. You say that there is only a 25 to 50% drop in red light runners after the cameras are installed. Does that mean that only 25 % of the people that get tickets for running red lights are smart enough to change and stop at lights?
It takes a bit of engineering knowledge to set a yellow correctly, but it is NOT rocket science. The problem in most scamera locations is that the lights are DELIBERATELY mistimed to generate revenue. If you want to see some mis-timed lights, just go to any venue that reports a lot of revenue from the scameras and you will almost certainly find that those lights are not timed properly. A properly timed light with a camera will not issue enough violations to even pay the basic operational costs of the camera, and will certainly not produce any profits for either the venue or the camera vendor. Randy, as usual, misquoted me on people running red lights on purpose. More people run red lights today at lights that are mis-timed, BECAUSE they are mis-timed. Randy is also incorrect in his last paragraph above. I am happy to see proper enforcement of PROPER traffic laws that are established for safety. This does NOT include under posted speed limits, mis timed lights, or other deliberate mis-engineering items designed to artificially create more violators so that more tickets can be given. I looked at the video and a proper yellow would very likely fix that location.
Jim again, name one light that is mis- timed . If there is such a light has anything been tried by you or anyone else to remedy the mis-timing? Yellow light timing is highly over rated on this site. If there is such a problem it is very easily fixed and if you can not do it I can easily get it corrected. First you contact the local person responsible for setting the timing, then the city and then the local TV station. Pretty easy. You and others here have to see something on paper because videos or thousands of personal sitings are not good enough. Below is another person's response on another blog:
From my observations of drivers habits in Illinois it has nothing to do with drivers exceeding the posted limits for the most part. It has everything to do with drivers just not wanting to have to stop. I can stop for a light in a multilane situation and three cars will run the light in the lane next to me and they had been keeping pace with my car up to that point. It was not a yellow timing issue. Except for large metropolitan areas like Chicago, cameras to catch red light runners are not used.
There are many in Chicago, timed at 3.0 seconds with approach speeds well over 30 mph, and a few have been measured just below 3.0 – which is violation of federal rules for any approach speed. I have data on at least 7 lights in Howard County, MD that are mistimed. There have been a lot of people create a LOT of noise to get under timed yellows fixed, and it is very hard to get the cities to slay the cash cow. I had a long set of email exchanges with the engineers in Seattle, a place that takes in well over $1 million per year in RLC fines. They flatly refuse to time the lights for the actual approach speeds – they deliberately under time them for the under posted limits. The last sentence by the other observer you quote is a quote from someone who has no knowledge of the extent of the abuses of RLCs.
Name the intersection and I can go and time it.
I am working on some specifics for Randy, but in the meantime, here is Jim Baxter's OP-ED from USA Today.
Unholy Alliance
By James J. Baxter
In his State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the loss of public trust in government. The loss of trust and growing cynicism extends beyond federal and state governments and descends right down to cities, villages and towns. Anyone looking for a good example of why this is happening need look no further than the public-private ticket-camera industry.
The use of ticket cameras to enforce traffic laws combines the profit motive of private enterprise and the power of government. This unholy alliance is perpetuating a hoax of monumental scale, and at great cost to the American public. It's not just the cost of millions upon millions of dollars in automated traffic fines. The more serious costs are the increased number of crashes, injuries and deaths that results from ticket camera installations. And, also, the recognized loss of trust and respect for public institutions, institutions that are supposed to be looking out for our welfare, not entrapping and endangering us to make a profit.
Red-light camera installations have infected hundreds of communities in the U.S. Their use is rationalized as a safety measure — reducing red-light running. They do in fact reduce red-light running in situations where traffic lights are improperly installed, maintained and/or operated. However, in the process, they increase accidents, usually rear-end collisions. Some independent studies show they do not reduce more serious right-angle crashes. (You can see our data at http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/.)
If, and when, traffic light flaws are corrected, the violations all but disappear and accidents decline. However, too often, maintaining revenue flow trumps the fixing of engineering flaws or changing dangerous management practices.
Practices as simple as adding a second or two onto yellow light intervals can virtually eliminate red light violations, permanently, but such changes are vehemently opposed by the ticket-camera industry. Why? The money goes away.
Some have said: "Why not do both, fix the traffic lights and use cameras, too?" The obvious question is, "Why use ticket cameras if there aren't any violations and the cameras just cause accidents?" Communities that have corrected their traffic light flaws have asked this last question and then removed the ticket cameras.
Thanks a lot for the post Jim. Lies, lies, damn lies you post! Do you honestly think that repeatedly telling lies makes them true? Your example that you keep bringing up of the intersection at US50 proved that that post is a lie. Even after the time was increased by 1.5 seconds there were still red light runners. When the camera was taken down the number of red light runners increased significantly. Ok, you did not believe what you saw in the video, you did not believe the statement that I presented from another person saying that many people that are able to stop keep going through the red. You do not believe me when I say that I have seen it. Do you drive that little that you have not seen it for yourself or is it that you are the one that is doing the red light running.
Randy, your repeatedly posting garbage will not turn it into filet mignon.
At US50, yes there were still violations with the longer yellow, and yes, they went up slightly after the camera was removed. That data was very clearly presented. But, in my math a long run reduction of 90% in violations is a LOT better than the 25% to 50% reduction most camera programs claim – even when their studies sometimes use cherry picked data to show the results as better than reality. My math says 90% lower is better, what does your math say?
Yes, I believed what I saw in the video but the whole yellow cycle is not shown. Is is likely a proper yellow would fix most of that. Yes I believed that other people saw it and that you did too. That does not change the reason to FIRST set the yellow for the actual 85th percentile speed of approaching traffic under good conditions. You do a couple of other simple things as well, long before any cameras are placed – check that the lenses are kept clean, use large lenses for fast approach speeds, use backing plates on east-west roads if sun glare is common, keep the painted lane lines and crosswalk lines in decent shape.
I am 65 years old and have about one million miles of driving experience. I don't run red lights. In Michigan, red light scameras are illegal, so deliberately short yellows are not common here.
Jim I am not close to 65 yet but I do have as many miles as you do and I have seen a lot of things that bad drivers do that you seem to never have. Michigan must have perfect drivers. I would like to see the month to month statistics of your US50 site. We never seem to get the details of that type of thing making it easy for you and others to make things up. I would bet anything that the numbers were already starting to drop well before the timing change. I do agree that yellow light timing should be correctly set but I have not seen any facts that they were not set correctly except a very few that were changed and corrected years ago. As for setting your yellow lights for the 85% speed, if you have 16 driversout of 100 driving way to fast you do not adjust the yellow light timing for that group but try to slow them down. Your theroy that you can drive as fast as you like and let the speed limits change to adjust to your excessive speed and also yellow light timing is stupid.
The data was collected by the camera run by the authorities – NOTHING was made up. Our guys saw the gross problem and kept pressing the authorities until they finally reset the light. The over 90% drop in violations was immediate, and it stayed down long term by 90%.
Yellows are the key to drastically reduce red light violations by far more than scameras ever will, and if you do not get that, then you simply do not understand how it works. The scamera industry could not even exist with properly timed lights, there are not enough violations to even pay the basic costs of the scameras, let alone produce any profitable revenue for either the camera vendor or the government. I have looked extensively at the program in Howard County, Maryland at about 10 lights. NONE are set correctly, with an average amount short of about 1.0 seconds. That is more than enough to make cameras VERY profitable.
If you see a camera program and they quote significant revenues for the government, I guarantee you the yellows are too short for the actual 85th approach speeds and the risk of a higher crash rate at those intersections is very real.
On setting yellows for the actual 85th approach speeds, you seem to say we should try to slow people down with deliberately short yellows. It does not work. This is also contrary to the 1994 ITE guidelines which clearly say to time for the actual 85th approach speeds. This misguided idea of yours causes more crashes at intersections with scameras, a fact well documented in studies in VA, NC, Los Angeles, Ontario and Australia.
Causing more accidents with short yellows and scameras is one of the most corrupt and immoral things governments have ever done with programs falsely labeled as for safety. Scameras are NOT for safety, they are for revenue, at the expense of safety.
Some 14 states now ban them or place such severe restrictions on their use that they are totally unprofitable and thus are not used. Red light cameras have never survived a public up or down vote to keep them.
Randy, you need to do a LOT more homework on this one.
Jim as I said before I do not doubt that a handfull of lights are mistimed. As I said before you find them and get them correced. No rocket science there. If as you say they make it unprofitable to have red light cameras they will not be put in place, that is a stupid statement. If the states had enough money they would have policemen to make drivers drive more responsibly but the states are broke. Stupid people do not realize that. You are saying since the states are broke we should let drivers do what ever they like. You say I need to educate myself on the subjject. It is pretty hard to educate myself when no facts are posted here.
Randy, you do not seem to understand that cities with cameras do not WANT the lights fixed. They WANT the lights poorly and dangerously mis-timed, because that is what makes the $$$$$$$$ from the scameras. Add up all the places with scameras that report significant revenue amounts and those are almost all badly timed lights. It amounts to WAAAAAAAY more than a handful, it is hundreds and hundreds of scameras that collect millions and millions of dollars in one of the most corrupt and dangerous schemes ever attempted with false claims of safety.
It is not rocket science to find the badly timed lights, but it is virtually impossible to get them fixed when the authorities put the scamera revenue above safety and fairness and good engineering. I AGREE that without mis-timing, the scameras will not be put in place, or will be taken down as unprofitable if they had been put up. That is very simple to understand. It is getting the timing fixed that is so hard. Many of the contracts with the scamera vendors prohibit fixing the light timing. It is not rocket science to see why the camera vendors want that clause in the contract.
Try this for some Chicago data
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrBFagel
I don't live there, but some other NMA members do and have documented a lot of cameras with about 3.0 yellows, many illegally just below the 3.0 level, and many with no regard to the actual approach speeds.
The entire industry of scameras is just that, a scam. The only acceptable answer is to ban them, the temptation to do bad engineering to get revenue is just too high for many cities to resist and they don't give a damn about the higher accident risks that have been documented in so many places.
Jim I just do not know what to say after looking at some of those NMA videos. Do you really believe those numbers? If you do you are truely stupider than I thought. The videos showed that the times were shorted by from 2 to 6 hundreds of a second. Guess what? They were using a 15 frame per second camera to determine those times. Guess what? The time between frames more than accounts for your missing hundreds of a second for the yellow lights. Are you that stupid and the NMA people that stupid that determined those times or was it done on purpose like most things from this site and a flat out lie
Suppose you are correct, and then those lights are all 3.00 or 3.02 or similar timing. How about the fact that the approach speeds will often be well above about 30 mph which is the level that 3.0 yellows are appropriate for. I have personally measured a lot of MD lights timed at 3.5 to 4.0 second yellows with approach speeds in the mid to high 40s. It only takes a 0.5 to 1.0 shorter yellow to make millions with a camera program in a big city. Look at the Chicago RLC revenue numbers, and you have your answer — IF you truly understand this issue. I don't think you do.
Jim no rocket sicience there. You fix the lights that are wrong if in fact they are. You do not make up lies about yellow lights across the country. Also if in fact people in MD are all like Randall that drive as fast as they damn well please and do not care about kids or pedestrians or other drivers then you try to get them to slow down.
Randy really doesn't get it. The cities with short yellows generally REFUSE to fix them. It isn't rocket science to find them and calculate the margin they are off, but the cities involved WANT them to be off and will generally refuse to retime them for safety.
I don't know that the videos have any errors. I said "suppose" they are off by the margins that make the time 3.00 or 3.02, but I do not know that to be the case. The intersections are well identified, why don't you find an open and transparent way to time them that cannot be tricked and show us the data?
If you research the stats, accidents for right on red are an infinitesimal number, completely unrelated to any speed issue. The MD cameras do not trigger at less than 9 to 12 mph – which is quite some distance from "drive as fast as they damn well please".
Jim if you would have read the statements by Randall who lives in the MD area you would have seen that he says he drives fast no matter where he is wether it is through an intersection, school zone, residential area. That is what I call as fast as they damn well please. If people drive like that they also do not care if they drive through red lights because they flat out do not care anything about others as long as they can save a few seconds. Those are the kind of attitudes that you promote and then blame getting tickets on some scam!
There are a few nuts in every venue and in every organization. i saw one Wednesday while doing some speed studies and he passed at 100 mph in a 70 zone. You cannot make law to try to change the behavior of a few nuts — they are going to do dangerous things regardless of the rules and laws.
I don't live in Chicagoland, so I do not have the opportunity to find a system to check the timing. You said a few days ago "Name the intersection and I can go and time it." The video names many of them and I challenged you to find some clear, transparent and accurate way to time them that YOU cannot trick and show us the results.
You really don't get the red light camera scam, or you do and you support it. Maybe you are on the receiving end of the revenue stream in some way. Maybe you work for a camera vendor? I don't know that of course, but it would be a logical explanation for your responses.
Jim I was willing to go to Chicago if there was some kind of actual evidence that you had that the timing was wrong but I am not going to waste my time driving that far with the evidence that you showed me. Pay my expenses and I will do it. I am 99% sure that the timing was correct from the evidence you provided. I am not going to spend any time or money proving every intersection in the US is correct. The evidence that you gave was a flat out lie and you need to talk to the people that presented it.
You made the offer, I just tried to accept it.
You really don't get it, or you are in the revenue stream.
Take any city that reports significant revenue from RLCs and you have a city where the lights are mis engineered or other tricks are employed to create revenue. RLCs do NOT produce any significant revenue at properly engineered lights that have no other tricks employed. RLC programs go bankrupt at properly engineered intersections
Randy, the facts to educate yourself lie in the dozens of reports from cities with scameras that report significant revenue from the programs. There are only two ways this happens. First, the yellows are too short by typically 0.5 to 1.5 seconds so they issue a lot of technical violations to people who enter in the first few tenths of a second of red but will clear the intersection before the cross traffic arrives so they present no real safety issues. Correct yellows timed to the actual 85th percentile approach speeds will fix almost all of these violations, far more than scamera programs ever will. It is not a popular solution for cities with scameras, because it kills the cash cow. Second, cities can set the scameras to not trigger a violation report for very slow rolling right on red turns. One MD county sets their cameras to not trigger under about 9 to 12 mph, depending on the shape of the intersection. A driver who slows to 5 mph and can see no pedestrian or coming vehicles in the rightmost lane presents no dangers if they do not come to a full stop — or if they follow the first car through who did fully stop and they did not need to to be safe. This action creates only an infinitesimal number of crashes and injuries, but it is how many cities make millions with scameras from safe drivers.
The ONLY acceptable reason for traffic laws and their enforcement is safety. Revenue is an unacceptable reason.
Ok Jim. It is impossible to communicate with you because you say it is fine to break laws as long as it does not cause an accident every time. It is fine to follow a person through red lights because after all you are right on their bumper and if there is an accident it is the fault of the other cross road driver because they should know that people do not follow the law or traffic signals. Maybe we do not need traffic signals since people do not follow them anyway.
When laws are established for the express purpose of creating technical violations that can be cited to produce revenue from safe drivers, it is the laws that are wrong, not the drivers.
Are there bad drivers that richly deserve sanctions for their dangerous driving? Sure! Will mis-engineered traffic lights and under posted speed limits enforced for revenue purposes find very many of them? No!
You simply don't get it – there are many venues around the country that do not give a tinker's damn about safety. They only care about the money they can produce from bad laws and aggressive enforcement practices that are unrelated to safety.
Maybe you really are in the revenue stream in some way and are just defending your paycheck.
Jim, you are the one that has problems it is not the government. You are more worried about the government possibly shorting yellow lights by 2 hundreds of a second than you are worried or care about someone driving well over the speed limit or driving on purpose through red lights. Both of these bad driving habits causes thousands of more accidents than a yellow light shorted by 2 hundreds of a second.
You don't get it Randy, the short yellows are anti-safety and done for revenue. I fully agree that .02 seconds is not relevant, but the attitude of the Chicago authorities to use the RLC program for revenue by setting yellows well below the actual 85th percentile approach speeds IS relevant.
Driving well over a PROPER speed limit (85th percentile) IS a safety issue. Driving 15 over a speed limit set 15 mph below the 85th puts that driver right at the safest point of the risk curve and the politician who insisted on setting the limit 15 below the safest point has no excuse for that anti-safety procedure.
Driving through properly timed red lights on purpose IS a safety issue, one that should be sanctioned. The number of times this happens is quite small, however.
You don't get it Randy.
Look, no body runs red lights "On purpose." At the very most we are just trying to make it before the yellow light changes. Which in my state is perfectly legal. In MD if the nose of your car makes it across the white line before the light turns red you can keep going. Sometimes its even safer because the speed your going and the timing of the light you may not have enough time to stop or you may be rear ended y the ass hole behind you.
No one "wants" to run a red light. No one wants to get into an accident. I sit at intersections and I realize that people obey traffic signals because they want to make it home tonight.
Unless your running from police, your breaks are out, or your a total Psycho, your not trying to run a red light. And even if you did there is still 1 to 2 seconds where all lights are red before another light turns green.
http://www.kiiitv.com/news/40874332.html
I suppose you say none in this video ran a red light on purpose. That is an idiotic statement that no one breaks the law on purpose. You do it daily.
http://www.kiiitv.com/news/40874332.html
Good link Randy100. Thank for bringing this to my attention.
(your link had something wrong with it. I retyped it here.) An increase of 1340 accidents is a large number, regardless of the % increase.
The article made no mention of red light cameras. The article does not say what if anything caused the increase in accidents.
The story in the video did not give any reasons for the accidents but at the same time the article that this blog is about did not either. Blind statistics mean very little when there is nothing to back them up with the reasons for the statistics. The story in the video did talk about all of the bad driving habits that the people were doing which included excessive speeding and running red lights along with all of the distracted driver reasons.
@Randy100
"The story in the video did not give any reasons for the accidents but at the same time the article that this blog is about did not either."
Agreed. To my understanding, the RLC was touted as a means to reduce accidents. The data presented indicates that this did not occur. This indicates to me that RLC may not be able to reduce accidents.
If someone was able to indicate that the increase of accidents was due to another reason then we would have something else to discuss.
We are prisoners of our sources.
@schwinn8 — Funny.
Fortunately IMO, a cheaper and more effective solution could also help reduce RLR.
Improve the timing of intersection.
A more visible police presence (ie not hiding or using unmarked vehicles) at different spots around the city.
Ok M1THRAND1R,
How do you know what the timing of the intersections is now and how do you know it should or could be improved?
Do you have an extra few billions of dollars to help pay for the extra police presence that is needed because it is obvious that the cities and states do not have the extra cash to do it. The cities would not need to have cameras or police at intersections or on the highways if you and others did not break the laws that make our roadways safer. How much intelligence is needed to stop at a stop light?
Now who is making assumptions?
"How do you know what the timing of the intersections is now and how do you know it should or could be improved? "
I do not know for every specific intersection. Reason (IMO) was used.
Do you know that a few extra billions is all that is needed? May be 60 or 70 billion will be needed. ;-)
Hopefully not much intelligence or wisdom is needed to obey traffic signals. :-)
According to information presented, accidents at these intersections increased 36%
(25*1.36=34) after the installation of RLC. It does not appear that the RLC are reducing the number of accidents.
Oh yes, we forgot, because only YOU are allowed to make up numbers without citations… because you know everything already, right?
Don't worry, Randy100, I BELIEVE YOU with all the faith in my heart!
"How do you make a 17.9% increase in crashes look like a success? Make up a formula that says so."
Or ask Randy100 to call it "aggressive driving" and pack it into some other unrelated statistical group!
schwinn8 it looks to me like they need to do something about the agressive drivers like you that tailgate.
I would be glad to see you or anyone else show this information.
"Every statistic that I have ever seen shows the number of red light runners and the number of rear end crashes go down after a few months with the cameras installed."
Damn right… Put up, or shut up, Randy100…
Cite your data… otherwise, it didn't happen.
I've got a statistic for you… I was driving through this intersection today, and everyone stopped! That means there's no such thing as a red-light runner!
A 2005 study of the Raleigh, North Carolina red light camera program conducted by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University compared "before" and "after" red-light camera intersection data and found right-angle crashes dropped by 42 percent, rear-end crashes dropped by 25 percent and total accidents dropped by 22 percent
A 2005 meta analysis compared the results of controlled before-after studies of red light cameras in the United States, Australia and Singapore. "Five studies found that use of red-light cameras cut the number of crashes in which there were injuries. In the best conducted of these studies, the reduction was nearly 30%
Please retype link.
After you submit link, edit your post and put a space before the """"
The link he meant to provide is here: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-09-05/news/172611…
First off, the artcile states: "…public education and old-fashioned police enforcement also contribute to the reduction of red-light violations." In other words, the RLCs aren' the only reason the accident rate was reduced. Of course, they don't expand on that, so let's look at the real report here: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtraffic/documents/Collision_re...
[quote]
PART 3: HIGHEST COLLISION INTERSECTIONS
Intersection collisions comprise the majority of injury collision in San Francisco. In 2006, nearly 70 percent of injury collisions (2,004) were collisions at or adjacent to an intersection. As documented in previous annual reports, the number of intersections with double digit injury collision totals has gradually decreased. This is due in part to the City’s targeted engineering safety efforts.
[/quote]
Feel free to read through the rest of that section… but I wanted to highlight that the study shows that "targeted engineering safety efforts" were credited for the reduction. NOT "enforcement" efforts like RLCs, but ENGINEERING.
Still, the study shows that red light cameras were use IN ADDITION to better engineering of the intersections and signal timing. The NMA has always said that improved engineering can reduce such collisions, and this study proves that is true as well.
So, the problem is, this was not a controlled test of RLCs "only"… so you can't credit the RLCs for "solving" this problem alone, as the article and Randy100 imply.
What's more, as the beginning of the PDF states: "Out of the thousands of intersections in San Francisco…" in other words, the 23 intersections with RLCs hardly represents a significant number of intersections in the first place. "Thousands" implies more than 2000, but even if you said 23 of 1000 intersections (just to be conservative) had RLCs, that's only 2.3% of the intersections. Whatever the RLCs did would be relatively minor for the entire city's statistics, which is where the 773 and 374 numbers were taken from. This shows that, once again, proper engineering of the intersections produces the largest improvement… NOT cameras. And it shows that the 773 and 374 were not related directly to RLC intersections.
Bottom line:
- RLCs weren't the only reason for reduced intersection-accidents in SF, so the numbers quoted are BS
- Given the numbers, RLCs were likely a minor effect on the accident rate in intersections
- This wasn't a controlled (or even remotely scientific) test for the benefits of RLCs – it was never intended to be that anyway
Therefore, this study doesn't provide any reasonable argument for or against RLCs… it's not relevant to RLCs at all, and the data presented cannot be reduced to show anything specific to RLCs.
schwinn8, that is why I did not bother going out to get the facts with dozens of links. You would have said the reports were made up anyway. I found that out many months ago that it was not worth my time finding and presenting facts on this site because even when the reports contained more facts than any others here, you or others would say they made them up. As for the few intersections in the report that you were making fun of, how many more intersections were in that report than the handfull in the report in this blog and NMA was making such a big deal about the handfull of intersections in this report. You have such high standards that you require of me and NMA has no standards they need to follow and can make up anything they like.
Damnit… I knew I shouldn't have bothered to post anything which makes sense… you wouldn't understand it anyway.
Still, keep in mind, you haven't presented ANY facts yet. Show us a scientific study, and then we can believe in the facts presented… otherwise, you're just an ignorant moron who believes everything he reads.
If you cannot question the "study" then it's not a scientific study at all. This is call basic science… you must have missed that day in school, since you still don't get it. Try doing a little reading on the scientific method, and how it's DESIGNED to allow asking questions and proving its case.
I'll admit that we are setting you up for failure, by asking for proof of your statements: The reason that you can't find facts supporting your case is because what you say simply isn't true, otherwise it would be far easier to find. Get that? It's UNTRUE no matter how much you believe it. Facts are facts, and they are not disputable. What you have provided is opinion, as clearly stated by the documents.
The NMA has plenty of real studies showing the facts of their statements… it is YOU that is having a problem reading and understanding what basic scientific studies are about, or basic reading comprehension in some cases.
Damnit, I did it again. Anyway, just continue ignoring the facts… and I'll try to continue ignoring your idiotic statements.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
For another take (sorry everyone else, I can't help it… the ignorance just amazes me):
1) Why is it that you believe what's said in the SFGate article without question? Just because it's on the web? The NMA is on the web – why don't you blindly believe them?
Maybe is it just because it's a "newspaper"? If so, why don't you blindly believe "theNewspaper.com" as well? For example: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp
Ok, so maybe you want a real "news organization"? How about ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=292547&page…
Or CBS: http://cbs2.com/goldstein/Red.Light.Cameras.2.130…
2) The ACTUAL STUDY (if you bothered to read it) makes NO conclusions on the efficacy of RLCs… yet, the SFGate writer makes up some numbers along the way. Yet, you choose to believe the SFGate writer over the actual study's facts and conclusions?
You just want to see "stories" that support your case, and assume everyone else is wrong. Look into the FACTS of your own references. We are all more than happy to look at facts proving that RLCs are helpful… I haven't found a single one, but I have found MANY throughout the WORLD that show they are not improving safety. The NMA page simply puts it all together for you to see.
Notice how NONE of the NMA references are for "their own" studies? That would be misleading and unscientific… the studies we reference are by the DOTs of many cities, states, or countries. You can't get any more factual than that.
Unless, you thing that they're ALL out to get us? Or that they're all NMA members or something?
Thanks for finally providing one link (the SFGate article)… I have shown the error in the assumptions. How about links to the other studies?
I will have to assume you mean the study cited here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/141.asp
Aside from the information presented in that article already, it might be good to look at the "study" itself. I get a kick out of the disclaimer on the second page: "The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of the University. The author(s) are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of either the North Carolina Department of Transportation or the Governor’s Highway Safety Program at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation."
In other words, this is not a "scientific study" at all… it's just someone who was asked to write a report, and they did so. The University doesn't even want to be associated with what was said, nor the accuracy. In other words, it's meaningless, and the accuracy is in question. I won't even bother reading any further into a "study" like this – it's about as meaningful as a forum post on the internet.
How about showing us something with some science behind it… or at least where someone can stand behind their work!