Follow by Email

Friday, December 7, 2012

Red Light Cameras cause more crashes than they prevent!
Article thanks to the A link to their site follows. The evidence is mounting on the disgusting ways these cameras are being used for revenue generation, not safety! We need to stand up and be heard Please check out www., you can join for free and help get the word out! Dan

In the debate over whether or not to use red light ticket cameras, New Jersey has been the primary battleground. For those who don’t know, the cameras were installed to help prevent accidents by encouraging drivers to be more careful to not run a red light. When the camera detects a vehicle crossing the intersection while the light is red, it snaps a picture of the license plate and automatically sends a ticket to the address that the vehicle is registered to.
The NJ DOT put these automatic ticket machines at 85 intersections across the state that have a history of accidents, and just last Monday, the DOT released the results of analysis done on the intersections. It turns out that not only do the cameras not help to reduce accidents; they actually make the intersections MORE dangerous. The report showed that while the number of right angle crashes were reduced by 15%, the number of rear-end crashes (caused by drivers stopping short at the intersection) increased by 20%. The report also stated that not only the frequency, but also the “crash severity cost” of the accidents was greater this year.
It is thought that perhaps the issue is that the light does not spend enough time on yellow before moving on to red. This results in drivers who are unfamiliar with the intersections getting ticketed while local drivers who know where the cameras are installed have to stop suddenly whenever they see a yellow light. Both of these instances are extremely dangerous, especially for truckers, who are less likely to be familiar with local roads and who have a much longer stopping distance.
Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon of Monmouth County has put forth a bill that would increase yellow times at intersections with cameras by at least one full second. The assemblyman also said that in some towns the cameras are viewed solely as revenue enhancers. When the same devices that are supposed to be keeping motorists safe are used to scam them out of money at the expense of their safety, something is extremely wrong with the system.
Sen. Mike Doherty of Washington has said that the findings of the report are no surprise, and that the cameras need to be taken down. “This complete failure to achieve that primary goal of increasing driver safety should lead to the immediate termination of the red-light camera pilot program,” Doherty said in a statement.

Susan November 30, 2012 at 10:49 am
The city of Phoenix (AZ) tried the red-light camera program for about 5-years but when the contract expired, the cameras were removed. (Some areas of the metro area like Scottsdale and Peoria continue with the program.) In Phoenix, some of the lights now have the “count-down” located on the crosswalk light, but previously the crosswalk light would flash 15-times before the light changed to yellow. However, if you didn’t actually see when the light started flashing, you had no idea how much time was left before it changed. The number count-down is a much better indicator.
Just like in the article above, while “t-bone” crashes were reduced by the red-light program (8 out of 10 crashes were caused by left-turns on a yellow), there was a huge increase in rear-end crashes as people raced to beat the light, then slammed on their brakes at the last minute to avoid a ticket. Those collisions smashed harder, and with more force since people were actually racing for the light, and as a consequence, the injury levels increased in severity. Instead of whiplash and crunched bumpers, cars were being slammed from behind with great force, pushing the front car out into traffic to cause a larger crash with more substantial injuries and much more damage to the vehicles involved.
I think I heard that the insurance companies lobbied the local government to drop the red-light project due to the higher number of claims and more expensive pay-outs due to these issues. It’s all about the bottom-line financially anyway.
Stephen November 30, 2012 at 11:44 am
Remember those ‘third’ brakelights that were suppose to reduce rear end accidents with cars? When they first came out, they were unusual so we noticed them.
Now, they’re part of the scenery. No one notices them.
So they increase the yellow light time….big deal. At first we’ll notice them, but soon it will be, “I still have time, I can make it…I can make it”
A simpler and cost effective solution would be to make the green light begin flashing 5 seconds before the signal changes to yellow. This will give us advance warning of the light and time to make an intelligent decision as to whether we can make it (safely) thru the yellow.
It only costs a little programming.
But then red light cameras were never about safety.
Luke November 30, 2012 at 11:49 am
“We didn’t love freedom enough”. A. Solzhenitsyn
on November 30, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Don’t be the least bit confused by all this; in Tucson the city had to reveal that the yellow light times had been reduced, YES REDUCED, by the contractor that installed the lights. The contractor gets a cut of each fine. Why do we continue to elect people capable of this sort of behavior?
Greg November 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm
I agree with Jim only thing people might use that and speed through light making it more dangerous.
Greg Lightning December 1, 2012 at 4:33 am
Who’s kidding who..Its a revenue shakedown…Ticket?…No points…Just send us your money…Mmm Hmm
When local government is in bed (50/50) with a 3rd party vendor who…like all businesses needs to make a profit…How is this not extortion?
They will find out as people will get hip to the locations and go other routes and your cash cow will all but die..
Need revenue? Put a cop / camera in a big truck and see how many times you get assaulted by law breaker 4 wheelers in just one mile…It will open your eyes


No comments:

Post a Comment