Red Light and Speed Cameras

Remove all ads!

I don't know BTA -- once you lower the offense to be equivalent to parking in a handicapped space it really doesn't matter who is driving. If it's no longer a moving violation which affects your insurance or does not count as points against your driving record, the actual person driving is immaterial. You run the risk of getting a ticket if you loan your car now (which is how it should have always been, put the onus on the owner as much as the driver). Out here they use cameras to monitor the tollways -- if you blast through a toll booth, the owner of the car can expect a fine that's nearly 100 times the cost of the toll.

 

Typically, it's a family member, and that's not really "loaning it out," unless someone has strange agreements among family members. I was reading several blogs here in Houston because of this thread, and people are reporting that they have been getting sent bills and have been able to prove that their cars were not in front of the camera at the time of the offense. For instance, one guy's car was parked at work at the time of his supposed offense, so there must be issues with this process. Also, another person fighting a camera ticket requested information on his fine and ended up downloading the personal info on the accounts of 10,000 other people including check routing numbers and account numbers -- and that was not even from a private company but from the city!

 

You can fight parking tickets if you weren't the driver. Just prove it when you go to court. I have done so in the past with my irresponsible older sister. She racked up 7 parking tickets in 3 days with my car while borrowing it to go down into Philadelphia for a long weekend to vissit friends. When I went to court, I told the judge what she did, brought my timecard from work to prove it was not me. She wouldn't come to court with me, so the judge threw them out if I promised not to let her use my car again. Obviously, I said yes. I wasn't lucky, I just did the legwork to prove it wasn't me. That is not asking too much of someone IMO. (Most)Judges see your record and appreciate your honesty.

Moving violations are another matter. It's a bunch of crap to send the ticket to the owner in the mail and assume he must take full responsibility. If they know the owner of the car and the owner can prove they were not driving it, they should not have to accept responibility for the fine. If you turn over the name of whoever was driving it, the police should take action on the said driver. Breaking a law is done by the individual, not the car itself or the car's owner. Many families can only afford one car but have multiple drivers. Many elderly have someone else do the driving, as they can no longer do so. But they still own the car. Why should they be responsible for someone else's bad decision making? Why intrude upon someone else and blemish their record when they did not break the law? It's stupid reasoning.

 

It looks to me that it's not so much the existance of the cameras that's at issue here, but who gets the money from the fines derived therefrom and the usage of the data once the fine has been paid. Concerns over that are justified. But having cameras there to slow down 85% of the population (15% being douchebags who nothing will work on) is still a good thing, I think. If there is corruption involved at the contractor level, then I say we find the corrupt individuals and adminster some yogurt enemas to them (see 11points.com for the reference.)

 

Which is precisely what I saw when I was driving in Australia. Nobody speeds there because they're not dumb enough to fork over money for nothing every time they're caught. Hey presto, safer roads and less deaths.

 

and

I can see that speed cameras can reduce fatalities in that if you're travelling at a lower rate of speed, you are more likely to survive a crash. But how do you account for the fact that there are actually MORE accidents at many intercetions where red light cameras are involved?

 

are you trying to tell us that you think cameras cause accidents at traffic lights?

 

I had always heard that the red light cameras reduce accidents. The aforementioned scenario makes sense, though. If the stats show that more accidents are occurring at these intersections, then one of two things are happening:

1: Ideologues are pounding a mantra (Criminals must be punished!!) without looking at all factors.

or

2: There is a cash cow mooing somewhere. Mooooo!

 

There are less fatalities at the intersections with red light cameras. The rear end collisions are nowhere near as bad as the high speed t-bone. I think the real reason for such things should be to save lives. I find it curious that some communities are removing the red light cameras because of loss of revenue -- these cities have their priorities off.

 

The thing is there are a lot of studies out there showing the exact opposite - that they actually increase accidents.

Check these links out:

The National Motorisits Association

The Washington Post

Here's one from the University of Southern Florida

One from Tennessee

The Virginia DOT

... and Corpus Christi

... and Maryland

 

The question here is whether it's a similar scenario to the boosted income. Are these accidents going to stick around, or merely people expecting others to blast through a intersection they always blast through, but the people don't? If it's the latter, that suggests that, just as people get used to the speedtraps and don't speed there, people will get used to the red-light cameras and expect to stop there.

Aldeth, T2 isn't arguing there are less accidents, but fewer fatalities, which makes sense if the accidents are rear-end at a stoplight rather than T-boning at full speed. I also found this part of your link interesting:

I don't know about where you guys live, but around here the lights with the longest yellows are the most likely to be run. If it becomes too long, people don't take it seriously any more.

 

Its the attitudes of drivers which cause the problem, and attitudes are getting worse, I never learnt to drive when I turned 17, Im learning now and its a nightmare trying to learn with all the arseholes on the road, people are prepared to sacrifice safety in order to get somewhere sooner, my instructor said a good comment, just as we narrowly avoided an accident from someone running a red light "I wish all drivers were learner drivers, a learner sets out to do everything right, an experienced driver knows he's taking a risk"
accidents arent going up because of the cameras, theyre going up because of the drivers.

You can blame the cameras, but its not, its the driver behind a car which decides to stop, looking at the yellow light thinking 'don't change, don't change' instead of looking at the vehicle infront which has braked instead of taking a chance, and bang, rear-end collision, I suppose the guy in front may have run the red light if a camera wasnt there but in reality the accident was caused by the driver behind not paying appropreate attention to the road.

And that "I need to get there now" attitude isnt limited to roads, just take a look at londons underground - these trains come every 2 minutes and people are still running up and down escalators and forcing themselves onto trains as the doors are closing.

Cameras arent the problem, people are the problem.

 

Yeah, that's really surprising.

Sorry I wasn't clear. That's what I was talking about. With most yellows, if the person is coming up to the light when it changes yellow, they know they can get through, while if it's yellow already, they know they can't. Only people who want to run the light do. With the extended yellows, though, you may be able to get several more cars through while it's yellow, but then there's no 'warning' before it turns red. Essentially, the extended yellow just becomes more green light, and there's no warning when it changes, resulting in people running the red or screeching to a halt right in front of it.

 

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but here we have some intersections that have a timed countdown on the pedestrian lights, so you know exactly how much time you've got. I kinda like that.

 

I don't know what to say, other than you obviously didn't read the links. The studies use intersections with red light cameras as the test group, and intersections without red light cameras that have similar traffic volumes as the control group. So unless you're saying that the drivers themselves are fundamentally different at the different intersections (and this seems highly unlikely) that comment doesn't jive with the facts.

Well, of course - that's true whether there's a camera there or not. And regardless of there is an underlying cause (such as the driver paying more attention to the light as opposed to the car in front of him), the fact remains that there are more accidents and more fatalities at intersections where the camera is present.

Your argument that it's not the camera, it's the person, is missing the point. I do not think there is anything different about the drivers at the different intersections. It is the presence of the camera that is changing the actions of the drivers. It leads one to conclude that there is a direct correlation between having cameras and the number of accidents and fatalities.

Congrats LKD! You got a Rouge Stone for hitting 4,000 posts! You have officially made Spam-Master status!

 

No, i read the links very clearly, and they all support what I said, quotes:

the washington post article states that accidents went up more at intersections without cameras, also, that it states an increase in T-bone accidents cant be blamed on the cameras, obviously at these junctions drivers are running the red light when the other light is green, so either people are running the light because they feel like it, or the other it changing to green too quickly.

Yes, I am saying that drivers are different at these junctions, because the law is being enforced at these junctions, without the cameras they would blast through on red, with the cameras they stop, the driver behind, who was also planning on blasting through the red light slams into the back of him.
An increase in injuries suggests that people are planning on blasting through these lights as their speed is sufficient to cause these injuries.

 

Now I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. You seem to be suggesting that the cameras are cauing people to alter their driving behavior, resulting in more accidents and more fatalities - which is essentially what I'm saying. That there are less accidents and fatalities at intersections without cameras suggests that the cameras themselves are (at least indirectly) responsible for more accidents.