Should Red Light Camera Intersections be cleary marked by large signs?

You have interesting math skills

Also, our nation is not a democracy, it is a republic.

 

Where ever red light cameras go yellow lights should be calibrated to cause fewer accidents and the intersections clearly marked as dangerous. The red light camera companies want shorter than safe yellow lights and no signage. If you want less safe roads and more accidents listen to them.

There are interesting cases like union city california, where a red light camera had a yellow light 1 full second shorter than the state recommend. After enough accidents and complaints a judge ordered it lengthened and some of the fine money returned. Union city now has lengthend yellow lights to acceptable levels and will kill their red light program because of lack of revenue.

The great number of studies show that the cameras actually cause more accidents and make us less safe.

This and numerous communities that reduce red light accidents by making appropriate yellow light times and road improvements. Red light cameras do not reduce accidents!

This is a different case. While red light camera behavior causes accidents and signs may help reduce them, there is no evidence that speeding through a speed trap increase accidents. The random nature of them may cause more people to drive close to the speed limit. We have empty police cars at certain spots to reduce speeding with no tickets. So even though I don't think we should have speed traps, I don't think they should be required to be marked for public safety.

 

No kidding!

 

I don't like the options of this poll.

yes they are there to stop red light runners or
no, they are just to generate money.

So, how about yes, they are there to stop red light runners, and why do we have to mark which intersections we are enforcing it at? Wouldn't it be more effective if people DIDN'T know which intersections had cameras, and then would have to treat ALL intersections like they have them? So instead of just not running lights at marked intersections, they should stop running them at ALL intersections!

Don't break the law, and you have nothing to worry about.

Full disclosure: I do work for a police department, and we do NOT have any red light cameras in my town, though they are in 3 out of 4 neighboring towns.

 

Agreed.

 

The easiest way to stop people from running red lights is to increase the time of yellow lights so they have time to stop.

Few people run red lights on purpose. Some slam on their brakes at unsafe times to not get a ticket. This causes accidents. Places all over the country have been caught with short yellow lights where cameras are. Who is hurting public safety, those who accidently run the light, or those that time the lights to get revenue even though it causes accidents, congestion, injuries, etc. There is no excuse for short yellow lights.

Signage marking dangerous intersections has been shown to draw attention. Red light cameras are marked in available information, so some of the drivers know about them and slam on their brakes to not run them. Signs allow the other drivers to be informed about others possibly slamming on their brakes. Do you want more revenue and to punish the guilty? Or would you prefer ethical police and governments. Those that ethically put up the cameras are not getting any where close to the revenue the camera companies projected. Often they lose money.

 

Yellow lights should be calibrated correctly to allow enough room to stop safely. This is true regardless of the presence of a red light camera or not.
We had some red light cameras installed at intersections that had a high number of accidents. The rate of accidents dropped substantially.
Due to the cameras only taking pictures of the license plates, the cameras were deactivated. Accidents increased again.
So in my experience, red light cameras are a good thing.

 

Red light cameras are pretty hard to miss - they are those big boxes on a pole situated usually on the corner of the curb.

FYI, those white cylinders on the top of the lights are not red light traffic cameras - they are merely sensors to detect whether to change the light green or red for cars, as well as sensors for firefighters, police, etc. You probably see those a lot more than actual traffic cameras.

 

I update it all the time. It has a small dongle that comes out and plugs in a mini USB adapter.

 

Where I live, they're all marked with a large sign ahead of the intersection.

 

Definitely agree with correct yellow light calibration. Sometimes in the interest of revenue, cities violate state law and remove constitutional rights. This was the case in Minneapolis, and the Minnesota supreme court ruled against the city. Court cases were brought because of uneven enforcement, the wrong drivers were being ticketed, and due process violated.

I tried to look up the red light accident rates. This is easily available here. I could not find it in Minneapolis. I assume this is where you live. I am interested to see accident rates with and without enforcement.

 

Eoin? I voted in favor of signs marking intersections employing red light cameras....and I gave some justification and illumination to my thought process. But having said that?

Just pay the fine.....

 

According to local police, accidents dropped by a third while the red light cameras were operating.
The red light cameras themselves are not unconstitutional. The court ruled that because the photo taken was only of the license plate, the identity of the driver was in question.
I also disagree with your assertion that the revenue generation is the primary reason for them.
However, even if that were true, so what. I would rather have law breakers paying their fair share (since they cause more demand of emergency services).

 

Not sure how accurate this site is, but it's difficult to find accurate statistics on this type of information quickly.

Red Light Running is a Top Cause of Auto Accidents

Running red lights is apparently the 6th leading cause of car accidents in the US. The ones above it - distracted driving, speeding, alcohol, reckless driving, and rain - are all a lot more situational. There's no telling where someone will be distracted or drunk, or blinded by water thrown from a truck. Despite that, we have laws that regulate them, and officers that do their best to enforce them. In many area's you can only operate your phone with a hands free device (and i've heard rumor that some places even disallow that). Officers patrol around bars and clubs late at night when people are more likely to be driving home drunk. As we've seen right here on PC, people get pulled over for driving funny even if its perfectly safe and they are doing it for good reason.

If red light cameras can help stop the 1000 deaths and 90,000 injuries caused by running red lights each year, then i say keep them. In those cases, the accident is caused by people trying to rush to get somewhere - you can't blame it on a single intersection. If they make the light for that one busy intersection, they may still run the light at the next. The only reasonable way to help curtail this is to not give them any forewarning which lights have cameras. If they know there are cameras in the area (maybe from getting ticketed a few times from them), they'll be more likely to stop - after all, what's a 30 second wait when compared with a (hopefully) substantial fine?

For some of the people who have brought up short yellows and such... I agree that this should be monitored. Any time a red light camera is put up, all the lights in the immediate area should have their timing checked to ensure its proper and safe. Given the posted speed limits on the road, it should be fairly easy to figure out how far back someone needs to be to comfortably stop when the light goes yellow, and base the light timings on that distance and the assumption that anyone inside it will continue driving at the speed limit.


I'll add to this a personal note. Maybe a year ago I was driving along and almost got hit by a fool in his truck running a red light. It wasn't as though he barely squeaked through and it turned red on him, and having sat at that light in all directions for years I know the yellow isn't short. No, the light changed in my favor, i looked both ways and started forward, at the same time the truck waiting next to me did. Out of nowhere the other truck comes flying through the intersection at 50+ mph. If i had been any more aggressive at the light, I would have been sandwiched between the two trucks and not here today.

Where was the red light camera that time?

 

I'll offer another alternative: EVERY intersection should be marked with a clear sign: "THIS INTERSECTION MAY BE MONITORED BY A CAMERA."

However, what I'd really like to see is a law requiring EVERY vehicle to carry a black box that records speed violations (by receiving a signal from a fixed device that broadcasts local speed limit) and red-light violations (by receiving a signal from the light) and failure-to-stop violations (signal from stop signs.) The black box would be read periodically, and could be read by a cop during a traffic stop. Tampering with the box would result in a mandatory five-year prison term.

Reckless driving is not a right. It is a crime that kills innocent people.

If you don't want to support your local government financially, don't run red lights.

 

I've launched very similar trial balloons, Daniel.

Modified what you said to insurance hikes only for the serial aggressive drivers....can you believe the outcry on curtailing one's human right to recklessly manslaughter others?

 

I'm with you on that Daniel... although it might be easier (and cheaper!) to skip the black box, and instead impose fines that actually hurt people, instead of just being an annoyance. $150 speeding ticket? annoyance. $100 for every 1mph over the limit... painful. $1000 for running a red light? painful.

Yeah, you'll have a huge outcry that the fines are unfair to people earning minimum wage and blah blah blah... but on the other hand, if you make sure the fines are high enough to actually impact people's lives, they'll think twice before speeding. And maybe, just maybe, we could adjust our culture to be one of respect for the limit, instead of disdain for those obeying the limit.

 

Thanks for the reply.
The law breakers got away without any criminal charges, but had to repay $2.6 Million to those they illegally fined. The Minnesota Supreme court ruled 9-0 against the use of the cameras as being unconstitutional. Minneapolis had created a situation where a green light pic was tagged, was still fined if the software said the time of entering would have been red. This made the red light laws different from the rest of the state. Offenders that were incorrectly charged had to take the day off work and go to court even when the license plate photographed was clearly wrong. Having the police refuse to even review the photo to make sure they ticketed the right car owner made enforcement different than anywhere else in the state. Both of these made it violate state law. The car owner was assumed to be guilty and had to prove his innocence from a criminal matter which is a violation of federal law. Those putting the cameras in, both the manufacturer and city government knowingly took away rights from the citizens for the sake of profit, then used a false emotional appeal to justify it.

I did read the police spokesman claim of 30% reduction, but there is no data to go with this. In the case of redflex and ACS their analyzed studies have been shown to be flawed, and in the majority of cases when proper analysis done the reductions are small or actually increases of accidents. If the reductions were really 30%, I would expect that they would be included in the good studies, and perhaps the state of Minnesota would set up a program that had oversight and did not simply violate the constitution. In Austin our police also claimed that the red light cameras decreased accidents 30%. When looked at correctly though accident levels increased at 6 of the 9 cameras. On the one with the biggest decrease, the decrease occurred before the camera went in, when an overpass was built. With corrected data there is a statistically significant increase in accidents intersections with the cameras compared to intersections without the cameras. Perhaps the commercials telling people how dangerous running red lights was responsable for the decrease, as well as new light timing on the non red light cameras. Austin did not shorten their yellow lights, so the program costs tax payers money every month, while perhaps increasing the number of accidents. Lubock was caught before they attempted to put out short yellow lights, and the program cost enough money for that city to eliminate it. Dallas was caught by the state with short yellow lights and using a vendor without proper license. The vendor illegally used personal information to hurt red light runners credit reports. When Dallas adjusted the yellow lights, they found the cameras cost them money. They are going with the lie that the cameras cut accidents instead of the data from texdot that longer yellow lights prevent accidents. 12 states have banned red light cameras.

Just some light reading.
Stoplight Traffic Cameras: Why Is Big Brother Ticketing You? - Popular Mechanics
There are studies by the USF that shows how the camera vendors corrupt the statistics to pretend the cameras are safe if you want further reading.

Lies, damn lies, and ambulence chasers. texdot (texas department of transportation) found when they were checking red light cameras that most issue tickets within the first 0.5 seconds. Longer yellow lights and timing can cut the figure of red light runners to one half. Red light cameras do not reduce accidents.

USF found that most of the worst accidents happen over 3 seconds into red. Red light cameras do nothing to stop these drivers. When the car runs a red light close to yellow the other traffic notices and accidents do not occur or are minor. Your case is the bad case, a truck coming from nowhere. The camera would have done nothing to prevent it, but it may have been able to catch that truck. All states would require getting the drivers face in order to give him the reckless driving criminal ticket he deserved. I wouldn't mind if the long (over 1/2 second) red light runners got ticketed and they used the cameras for transportation planning. Unfortunately most of the cities really don't do this sort of thing.

 

This is a poorly constructed poll. It is a force poll, providing only answers that the poller wants to hear.

I would vote for "No. Let people guess which ones have cameras."

I also like Daniel's version, but that would require a lot of signs.

Tom

 

Perhaps you should move to a police state. Ofcourse you may not like their rules either. Why not just make driving illegal, because without driving there would be no accidents?

Great. Lots of people claiming safety but not reading if these things make them safer. But this suggestion takes the case. Remove the implied right of privacy, kill due process. Just throw out the 4th amendment, daniel doesn't understand it, and it will make him feel more safe. What's next, I'm sure you approve of pulling people over for driving while Mexican.