Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double
During a recent session of the Peoria, Arizona City Council, some interesting statistics were released on the city’s red-light cameras.
According to an article by the Arizona Republic, the city’s police department reported that accidents at intersections with red-light cameras more than doubled over the last two years. In the 2007 fiscal year, there were 36 collisions. In the 2008 fiscal year, there were 73 collisions.
As the article says:
Whether they like photo enforcement [or not], Peoria leaders seem to agree on one thing: it’s not clear whether red light cameras are actually making the city’s streets any safer.
With double the number of accidents, that’s certainly putting it lightly.
The city isn’t letting go of the the cameras that easily though. They insist that it couldn’t be the cameras that are causing the collisions and instead blame road construction.
While it’s true that evaluating traffic safety statistics year to year needs to be done carefully, one of the city’s councilmen makes a good point:
Councilman Ron Aames from the Palo Verde District said the increase suggests that the cameras might actually be making intersections more dangerous.
In response, Deputy City Manager Susan Thorpe said there are “multiple variables” affecting collisions and that the cameras shouldn’t be treated as the “single difference between one year and another.”
Aames replied, “I’m thinking if these numbers were reversed . . . I probably wouldn’t hear these other ways of explaining it.
There are numerous studies showing that red-light cameras lead to increased accidents. Yet, while cities will trumpet the smallest apparent ticket camera success, they will go to great lengths to avoid the idea that the cameras aren’t working. Especially when the cameras bring in so much revenue ($680,000 since January 2008 in Peoria).
Of course, with more and more poor ticket camera results becoming public, most people have figured out the true purpose of the cameras by now anyway.
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.)
I have a lead foot; always have. But I used to be able to make payments on my tickets, or do community service, or, if I was under-employed, pay half the ticket. I now have two speeding tickets that I can not pay in full and no options. I went to court. They said my options were pay in full or fight it in court. I didn’t want to claim not guilty, because I am guilty. I just wanted to do community service instead of paying the fine. Not an option with camera tickets in AZ.
And soon, someone who is in one of those accidents will sue using those statistics.
That lawsuit will cost Peoria a lot more than $680,000…..
_Jon, how could someone sue the city for having more road construction?
not a laywer, but I am guessing it is like this: if gov’t knowingly set the yellow light too short and it contributed to an accident, they could be liable for some type of negligence.
Mithrandir I am not a lawyer but there is no evidence shown that says that the red light cameras or any yellow light timing changes have caused increased accidents. None.
It is kind of like finding someone dead and accusing someone that has a gun that they killed the person without looking for a bullet hole in the dead person.
Not necessarily.
EX:
I am about 200 ft away from an intersection with green traffic light traveling at PSL of 50 mph. The light begins to change.
I can pass through the intersection in about 2.7 seconds.
If the light changes to red in 3 seconds, no problem pass intersection during the yellow.
If the light changes to red in 2.5 seconds, problem. Now you technically passed a red light.
Sometimes people can fall into the zone where it is difficult to tell if can safely stop your car before the intersection or if it is safer to drive on through (even if you may technically run the light by a second at most).
If you are aware of a fast light (and RLC) you either break your car fast or possibly gun it to avoid the RL. You also only have a split moment to decide what to do.
If you gun it you may or may not beat the light. If you immediately break your car you should be able to stop in time, (Assuming breaks and car in good condition) but you possibly may be hit by some one from behind.
Sure the person behind you should have been in control of vehicle and paying attention, but this does not help you if you are in an accident.
If gov’t knowingly set the yellow light too short and it contributed to an accident, they could be liable for some type of negligence.
(again not definitely, but possible)
If the Light was changed to 4 seconds you would have about 300 feet which would be safer for everyone. People would have more time to react to light change.
================================
Again this is only hypothetical and I think it would be difficult to prove negligence by the gov’t.
This also does not take into account the driver that is driving carelessly at a high speed for a road not designed to handle vehicles traveling at high speeds.
This is assuming that the driver is driving safely and responsibly for the given conditions.
[As an aside, if there is an 18-wheeler or other similar big rig I am more inclined to pass the light than break the car fast. I would rather risk a ticket than try to catch a big mac with my car. ;) ]
Mithrandir I do agree that 2.5 seconds is too short for a 50 mph speed but since it is hypothetical and no real facts present it does not make much difference.
I also agree that an 18 wheeler should not be riding your tail along with any other vehcile for that matter. You discovered the fact that maybe police should be doing more about tailgating but for the most part someone hitting your rear end usually is more of the minor accident variety unless they are totally not paying attention. Also if someone is driving toward a light they should be ready to stop unless the light just turned green or they are texting on their cell phone then they should finish the texting first and then stop.
So how did the red light camera help here? The accident would have occurred anyway.
It goes to show that red light cameras rarely prevent accidents, but they sure bring in a lot of money!
Bill I hope it brings in a lot of your money since you are unable to stop at red lights.
I do not see how one implies the other. (Disagreeing with effectiveness of RLC and how one drives.)
In the case pointed out in you tube, the driver did not appear to pay any attention to surroundings and plowed into another driver.
Laws do not prevent inattentive drivers. Laws do help society in assigning responsibility and consequences for ones actions. (in some cases they may serve a deterrent for some behaviors.)
Mithrandir maybe the first example I gave was or was not a good one for red light runners but it does show exactly what happens when people do run red lights and why they are trying to stop people from pushing the envolope and entering an intersection well after they have a red light. Serious accidents do happen. They are not minor accidents particularly when people speed up when the light turns yellow when they are hundreds of feet from the intersection yet. This type of action is what they are trying to get people to stop doing. In the second video I presented it does talk about actual red light runners and the consequences.
No, Susan. Of course. CAN’T be the cameras.
36 collisions in 2007. Add cameras. 73 collisions in 2008.
Cameras are part of the problem, Susan. Of course there may be other variables.
How long is the yellow phase of the light? Perhaps we need to increase it.
Ooohh… Increase length of yellow phase means less people running red and less collisions. This sounds good. But this would also mean fewer tickets and therefore less cash. Oops…
Gary since they “blame road construction” on the increase in traffic accidents maybe they should stop road construction and do not worry about the yellow lights. You and others think you know better even though you live hundreds or thousands of miles away and do not know any facts.
I do not think taking out the cameras is going to do much for the motorcycle rider.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMn5yZmBApw
Randy,
Interesting you tube. (Hopefully no one was hurt.)
What does this you tube have to do with article?
I think a better adjustment to intersection (such as increasing yellow or jave red all around) can do more to protect motorists than the camera.
The camera can bring more cash in though.
If you did not get it, this involved a red light runner. Did you not see the red light? You can increase the yellow light and have all red for 2 seconds but there will be some that still will try to stretch the yellow light a few more seconds. Why do you think they put up cameras? They put them up because it was observed by people that some were running red lights a few seconds after they were already red. Many intersections already have red lights all directions for a second or two. Get people to drive according to the and you would not need any cameras.
Here is a link why they put up red light cameras
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZfTAHYrQHk&NR=1&feature=fvwpights
That isn’t the United States.
That is a scooter, not a motorcycle.
Whoa. Randy’s right for once. I mean, look at this. This is great footage. Without red light camera’s we never would never get to watch this.
Randy,
In 1st video, the car ran through the red light. I do not think this was a case of passing when the light just changes from yellow to red. The light was red (for the car) for some time. In fact, it did not change until the car smacked into the motor scooter and then smacked into the median.
My understanding of RLC is that they primarily are to help encourage people not to enter the intersection after the light becomes red. (ie under 2 seconds) This car plowed through after the light was red for a significant amount of time. (At least 7 seconds according to the video)
I agree that the Red light camera did nothing for this scooter driver. I just do not see how a RLC will help prevent an idiot from plowing into an intersection against the light after the light has been red for at least 7 seconds.
My comment had little to do with this specific case. It was a more general comment. I think those suggestions would help reduce most RLRunners to a minimum, since I believe ,if possible, most people would not purposely run a red light.
===============================================
I have driven in those parts of Orlando and I agree that there is plenty of congestion and traffic at those intersections. IMO, the Orlando area has outgrown the capacity of many of these roads.
I think that changing the timing of some of the lights and removal of some the intersections (through construction) may be the only way to significantly improve the situation.
People driving carelessly through redlights do not help. (especially if they drive light that first person from the Youtube video and plow through a red light that has been red for at least 5-7 seconds.)
IMO, If the intersection could be designed better, it may be possible to reduce many of the RLR.
The first video I would hope is an aberration. Running a red light 7+ seconds after the switch would imply that the driver is not paying attention to their surroundings or does not care.
I know that there are 2 intersections near where I visit that have about 150 accidents with a majority attributed in part to RLR. They have tried to different things to reduce the number of RLR, but there still is a problem at these intersections.
I do not have a problem with using Cameras at intersections that continue to be problematic after other steps have been taken to try and minimize the problem of RLR.
George what definitiion of a motorcyle does the vehicle not fit?
Mithrandir although this may be more than your two seconds, red light runners go way past your two seconds. If it was only 2 seconds there would be fewer accidents and no need of cameras. As you said, both red are on many intersections now.
a red light camera wouldn’t have helped in this situation. ooo he would have gotten a citation which he would have gotten anyways once the police arrived but the guy on the scooter still would have been injured.
Randall red light cameras will not stop all serious accidents but it would stop a lot of them.
Scooter you step through.
Motorcycle you step over.
It isn’t that hard to be precise.
George you are an idiot. I asked what definitiion of a motorcyle does the vehicle not fit?
motorcycle
Definition:
2-wheeled motor-powered vehicle: a two-wheeled road vehicle powered by an engine
Another definition that George needs to add to his collection:
Road Motor Scooter
A road motor scooter is a motorcycle with a step-through frame in which the rider sits without straddling any part of the engine.
I take it that you do not ride a motorcycle.
See page 8
http://www.msf-usa.org/CurriculumMaterials/BRCHandbook2009.pdf
http://www.msf-usa.org/downloads/Scooter_tips-screen.pdf
George I do know you are an idiot for not knowing a scooter is a motorcylce. I do own a motorcyle.
A car is a car no matter if the engine is in front or back or if it is a hard top or convertable or what type of transmission it has. The same thing for a motorcyle in that it does not matter what type of transmission it has or where the engine is located it is still a motorcyle.