Comments on: Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

By: Three Cheers for Aggieland « Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog

Three Cheers for Aggieland « Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:06:15 +0000

[...] to the stalwart denizens of Aggieland for voting down redlight cameras. Study after study has shown red light cameras actually increase accidents, and merely exist as a way of extracting yet more money from taxpayers, and to line the pockets of [...]

By: Ming

Ming — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:31:21 +0000

To I stop for red lights. Why dont you says,

You’ve never hit an intersection where the yellow is alot shorter than you expected and you ‘ran the red’? If you say no, your either lying or drive extremely slow, which is illegal as well.

Don’t pull a holier than thou it’s extremely distasteful.

By: California court declines to publish anti-camera decision | Dangerous Intersection

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:05:33 +0000

[...] governments argue that these sorts of cameras improve safety and increase revenue. Studies are increasingly putting the lie to the safety claim, but nobody’s disputing that these traffic enforcement mechanisms bring in revenue. Red light [...]

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:50:58 +0000

RLCs suck. If you want to reduce collisions, do these things:

-Increase the yellow time.
-Post the yellow time, or a timer as it counts down.
-Don’t choose goofy yellow times, like 3.48 seconds. Use whole seconds only.
-Build traffic circles. They’re not just for gay Europeans any more.
-Use more stop/yield signs and set traffic lights to flash red/red or red/yellow in off hours.

None of those things involves treating people like scum, and every one of them reduces collisions. Too bad they don’t make money. Or make sanctimonious jerks feel better when they pontificate about how people should be “better drivers.”

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:46:26 +0000

You know what else is illegal? Shortening the yellow time at a red-light. Yes, that is actually the law in Texas, and yet some cities are doing it.

Screw illegal. If the govt wishes to treat its citizens unjustly, then the citizenry has a right to disregard the laws of govt. Treat people fairly, and you have the right to expect obedience.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:42:57 +0000

That’s great. You know what would be better? If we all rode bicycles too!

Get real. People run red lights accidentally or innocently all the time. Many people simply misjudge how long a light will be yellow (and with the absurd times they choose, such as 2.3 seconds or 3.4, nobody can accurately predict those every time.) Other people make an informed decision that it is safer to run the light than to stop, such as in rainy conditions or when being tail-gated. You can gash on about how such people should drive safer, but missing a light by a fraction of a second is not a great evil, it should not be treated as such. Lights are here to serve us, not the other way around.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:38:58 +0000

Wrong. Not every T-Bone crash is serious. A great many end up as glancing blows off the front or rear of the impacted vehicle. Very few end up as massive, fatal collisions that send cars flying through the air. The very reason you hear about those is the rarity of them.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:36:13 +0000

So does requiring everyone to stay indoors 23 hours a day and wear bubble-wrap when they go out. The solution to the idiots who blatantly run red-lights is not cameras. They don’t affect people like that anyway (what’s scarier, a ticket or a life-ending crash? If they don’t fear the crash enough, they sure don’t fear the ticket.)

By: Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double « Freedom Arizona

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:32:57 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Randy

Randy — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:10:37 +0000

The one study that this site shows a link to says that the statistics were unreliable because of the coding that they went off of by the accident reports were not consitent and reliable to do proper analysis. It basically said that the report was worthless.

As for the other link that was show it reports that:

11.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results presented in this report, the Red Light Camera Enforcement Pilot Project has

been shown to be an effective tool in reducing fatal and injury collisions, thereby preventing

injuries and saving lives. For these reasons, it is the opinion of the evaluation study team that the

pilot project has been worthwhile and would continue to be of benefit to any participating

municipality.

As for any increase in rear end collisions it would show that people at the location would be traveling too fast and too close to the vehicle in front of them and that they would have been the red light runners if the vehicle in front of them did not stop them. This site goes ahead and prints any statistics that would help their point and ignoring the rest of the reports that show otherwise. What else is new?