April 7, 2008 11:32 AM
Red light cameras: studies differ on effectiveness
Denver projects $1.1 million in new fines after it installs red-light cameras at four intersections over the next two months.
At a cost of increasing rear-end accidents? But of decreasing more serious side-impact crashes? Studies of intersections in cities where red-light cameras have been installed are inconclusive.
Kevin Flynn reports:
Denver says it aims to improve safety when it launches camera red light enforcement in the next two months, but the record in other cities suggests it is likely to increase accidents.That's what happened in Aurora and Fort Collins and has been documented in studies.
Accidents at four Aurora intersections with cameras went up 36 percent in 2006, the first year. While the program is aimed at traffic safety, Aurora hasn't compiled accident stats for those corners for 2007.
Nor have the cameras cut the number of red light runners. Tickets were up more than 12 percent in the second year.
In Fort Collins, accidents went up 83 percent in 10 years at a corner after a camera went in, while tickets averaged 166 a month. After the yellow light was made one second longer in 2005, tickets went down to 21 a month and crashes dropped 29 percent.
But even so, the accident rate is still 53 percent higher than the last year before the camera.
"Cameras do not reduce accidents caused by engineering defects," said Chad Dornsife, of the nonprofit Best Highway Safety Practices Institute in Portland, Ore., which favors engineering solutions for red light running.
The timing of yellow lights is a key factor:
Denver's four sites have speed limits of 30, 35 and 45, with actual traffic moving faster.The suggested safe minimum for those are 3.2, 3.6 and 4.3 seconds, plus added time for other factors.
In fact, one Denver camera site may have illegally low timing. Videos taken by the Rocky Mountain News at East Sixth Avenue and Lincoln Street showed yellow lasting only 2.86 seconds, 5 percent less stopping time than required and 11 percent less than recommended for minimum safety.
CDOT won't allow red light cameras on state highways because of the tendency for more rear-end accidents.
"My philosophy is, if I have a corridor with traffic signals and I'm having a lot of accidents at one of them, that's probably my problem," said Rich Sarchet, of CDOT's research branch. "It's signal timing. I am extremely reluctant to say the solution is a red light camera."
The law requires yellow times from three to six seconds. Federal guidelines recommend increasing yellow time and other engineering measures to stop red light running before using cameras, but Denver didn't do such a study before hiring Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian-owned company with U.S. offices in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Last week, city traffic officials said that because of questions raised by the Rocky, they would look into adding yellow time before the cameras go live.
Are red-light cameras a good idea? Should the city adjust yellow lights before the cameras are installed? Do red-light cameras help prevent accidents or are they just money traps for local governments?
March 31, 2008
1:45 PM
Shaggy writes:
Just one more reason on top of all the other reasons to avoid Denver like the plague and the s---h--- it has become since the Democrats took control.
Trust me on this..they don't care if you get into an accident..they just want your money...it just boils down to being another tax on top of all the dancing letter taxes that Hick screwed you all on.
I can see you all from up here on top of the hill here but I wouldn't want to be you.
March 31, 2008
2:01 PM
Golden writes:
Money traps. We should give tickets to politicians for stupid ideas. That should do the trick
March 31, 2008
2:04 PM
benn writes:
They need to install some in Broomfield. I have never seen such rampant Red-light running as I do in this city. Someone is going to get killed one of these days.
Keep the cameras, but lengthen the yellow lights to match the speed (1 second per 10 mph) for the road.
March 31, 2008
2:45 PM
BigD writes:
Right, like this is Democrat's fault. Get real. It's just an idea.
But I agree that red-light cameras are touchy. Out here in Aurora, I feel like if I'm approaching one and it turns yellow right before I get into it, I have to slam on my brakes- I don't want a ticket! Plus these things don't seem to sense if there's inclement weather conditions. I mean, I'm not going to try to stop quickly if the roads are all snowy or icy... but I guess that'd mean I'd get a ticket for not wanting to slide sideways and probably still go into the intersection, only seconds later once cross-traffic started going.
If these are used it most definitely needs to be adjusted to wait until the light is truly red for the camera to go off.
March 31, 2008
3:00 PM
Fresh writes:
I Hope you all Know that you are not legally obligated to pay for a Red light camera ticket.
Look it up if you don't believe me .
March 31, 2008
3:10 PM
Shaggy writes:
I find it so amusing that most of the left leaning people are so upset that the Government wants to put a wire tap on suspected terrorists yet they seem to be in cahoots with having big brother spy on them while they cruise around town.
March 31, 2008
3:15 PM
Shaggy writes:
Oh..I forgot..It was Bush who wanted to wiretap suspected terrorists...so obviously they would hate that.
If it was Hillary, Obama or any Democrat wanting to put wire taps on suspected terrorists they would think that was the best idea anyone ever came up with.
Not only does Bush have to fight the terrorists over seas he has to fight the loons back here in the States.
March 31, 2008
3:39 PM
benn writes:
Shaggy, I guess you still don't get the Strawman fallacy, let's not us forget your equivocation.
Warrantless wiretapping isn't the same as cameras to snap plates of folks who are running red lights. World of difference there buddy.
March 31, 2008
3:57 PM
Tree writes:
I vote to extend the yellow light to 4.5 seconds. Save some lives, save us some fines and save us some car wrecks.
This program done properly can also be financed 110% by the auto insurance companies. The insurance carriers know the bad intersections better than anyone. Think of Vegas gambling and the eye in the sky. They would pay the state of Colorado a lot of cash to have access to put video cameras at the problem intersections to see who was actually at fault in that accident as they pay millions yearly in claims.
And, the downside: be careful what you wish for! I had that famous email sent to me. The "priceless" caption. Guys wife is out with her boyfriend and happen to drive thru a red, the picture snapped is of her stroking him while driving that red and it's sent to their home with the fine. "that's gonna' leave a mark." - Tommy Boy.
March 31, 2008
4:04 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Actually, Shaggy, I am not rabidly wild about any of the major candidates this year, as I think they all lack something as far as immigration reform goes.
That said, the major difference I see between wiretapping and traffic cameras, is that wiretapping can happen irrespective of if you have committed a crime or not. Just suspicion alone can buy you an unwarranted wiretap listening party courtesy of the gov't...Traffic cameras at least have the justification that you (or someone using your vehicle) blew through an intersection. Worst case scenario would be if your spouse/kid/buddy who borrowed your car gets a ticket which gets mailed to you (the owner of said vehicle)
I've never received one of these tickets, but I drive on most days through the intersection of Huron and 104th, which has cameras going all four ways, and without fail, someone tries to blow through most days. Never fails to amuse me.
March 31, 2008
4:29 PM
benn writes:
gr8 knows the truth. Red-light runners are all over the northern part of town.
March 31, 2008
4:47 PM
deckhand writes:
Longer yellow...problem solved with no cameras! But then no revenues either. I was curious, so I did a (very unscientific) experiment at some local stoplights. I came to the conclusion that it is impossible for a car whose front bumper enters the intersection during the last millisecond of yellow to broadside a crossing car who started legally when the light turned green. This is true for two lane and four lane intersections. Cars just can't accelerate that fast. It is far more likely (from my observation) that the crossing car whether beginning at rest or approaching at speed will initiate an accident by anticipating the green and broadsiding the car that entered legally on yellow. Do we need "green light" cameras? I don't think so. I also think the vast majority of people know that the yellow light is there to clear the intersection - they just need a reasonable and consistent time to do it! I see no safety value to stoplight cameras at all, just revenue producers that could cause more accidents.
March 31, 2008
4:55 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
One solution is to let your car get so dirty that the license plates are unreadable.
Another solution is to leave the fast driving for the freeway, and slow the f**k down on crowded city streets.
Yet another solution is to make everyone drive and park in special designated zones while providing buses, trains, and trolleys to get around in densely populated residential and business districts. Everyone could breathe easier knowing Johnny chasing his boffo ball into the street has no greater worry than being whacked by a bicycle as opposed to being splattered by a motor vehicle. We'd burn less gas, too.
Sensible community planning, a strange new concept for America.
March 31, 2008
5:43 PM
Shaggy writes:
Dude,
If the Government suspects someone is talking to terrorists I think they have a duty to find out what they are talking about to protect the U.S. from another attack.
March 31, 2008
6:46 PM
benn writes:
That's because you're dumb shaggy, and you think everything is black and white.
Newsflash - it ain't.
March 31, 2008
8:20 PM
Concerned Mom writes:
And back to the yellow light issue....Denver has the shortest yellow lights I have ever seen. (And I've lived in in almost every major city in the country.) For example, I am turning left on 1st St. from University. The arrow is green when I enter the intersection, and it is red before I have completed my turn. I am going the correct speed. The whole point of a yellow light is to give you enough time to complete your turn or your move through an intersecion if you are already in the intersection.
Now I can't explain the behavior of the three drivers behind me who proceed to make the same turn even though the light is already yellow and red. I've even been honked at (and then chased) for stopping at a yellow light. I'd say in general laws need to be enforced that protect us. I have almost been hit 4 times in 6 months by very late red light runners. I tell everyone who drives here that you have to drive defensively here.
Thanks.....
March 31, 2008
9:20 PM
PMSXpress writes:
"If the yellow-light times are set below recognized standards..."
Pretty much says it all. Gotta get that money where they can. Safety doesn't even enter the picture. How is it that we aren't obligated to pay red light tickets Shaggy?
March 31, 2008
11:06 PM
Booksmart writes:
Let them send tickets to everyone. With a little research and a good lawyer you won't have to pay the ticket if the yellow light really only lasts three seconds. Then where is the money going? Not to the city's coffers. Oh well I guess I can find a needy lawyer instead of a needy politician.
April 1, 2008
7:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
If we go all the way back to what I think is the initial problem, we would require that people take driving lessons from an approved school and become certified before handing them a license .... because it's really two main issues .. many people have no idea of how to drive correctly and extend the simplest of courtesies, and the second is that people are too damned impatient .... I know I'm not the only one who is tail-gated because I'm only doing 4 or 5 over the speed limit, so Joe Schmucko (or even worse, Jane Schmucko) uses their truck or SUV to try and bully me into 15 or 20 over, even though they'll still be on my bumper if I do .... those people should lose their license for vehicular menacing, pay a hefty fine, and have to attend driving school and anger/patience management classes because they are a threat to others on the road
April 7, 2008
1:14 PM
JMH writes:
Red light cameras are nothing but another way to raise money! It is a govenmnet mugging, plain and simple. An extra second or 2 would help this problem alot and would also help with all the rear end collisions we are currently seeing as a result of red-light cameras. Denver currently runs all their lights with 3 seconds for yellow, most other towns in the metro area run them at 4 or 4.3 seconds.
But never trust government when they tell you something is "for your safety". It rarely is... This is all about the money, it always is...
April 8, 2008
12:01 PM
Mary writes:
Yes - blame the Dems - I live in Arapahoe County (Tancredo territory, and the vast majority of the city council is GOP) - where we have the cameras at some intersections that benefit the businesses, and penalize the workers trying to get home. I would sell my soul to see the lights at the end of the off-ramps from I25 where the "ME FIRST" folks come thru (Orchard & Arapahoe going to Fiddler's Green) to completely block the cross traffic - but they might be late getting to a concert! By the way - this is NOT a speed issue, as typically the light under the overpass is red - and the traffic is coming off at 5-10 MPH. They could have stopped, but only their time is important - and they are breaking the law by blocking the intersection - but what the heck - it's all about them.