West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(71 posts)

Just Say No To Red Light Cameras

Started 3 years ago by BobLoblaw
Latest reply from Julie

BobLoblaw
Member Profile

Red-light cameras raise some red flags
Some cities, vendors are profiting but unclear if safety is improving
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29681527/

Posted 3 years ago #
flowerpetal
Member Profile

Seems to me that the red light cameras are still a good thing. A reduction of t-bone crashes by 28% and only an 8% increase in rear-end collisions. It looks to like municipalities with red light camera contracts are correcting the way these businesses are paid.
I'm curious what others understand from this article.
Thanks BobLoblaw

Posted 3 years ago #
MousePotato
Member Profile

That is rather concerning that so much of the revenue goes to the vendors instead of the cities. Does anyone know what arrangement Seattle has for its cameras? Seems like there would be too much motivation for these companies to ‘sell’ these cameras and push cities to install more just for the companies to make more money. My other concern for the camera tickets is will this lead to automatic speed ticket cameras? If those start popping up I might just become the vigilante that cuts them down in the middle of the night. I don’t really have a problem with the idea of red light cameras (if it stops there) but I completely disagree with the money going elsewhere. That’s a whole lot of pot hole fixin’ money that we could certainly use….

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

MousePotato - When I was recently in Phoenix, I noticed that all the freeways have the speed cameras now.

I think the logic behind them is good, as it wll cut down on speeders, but the complaint I have is the way people drive since they have installed the cameras.

So, if they ever do come here, watch for people slamming on their brakes periodically as you are driving on the highway!

Posted 3 years ago #
Julie
Member Profile

NR, I'm curious about this: do you mean drivers slam on their brakes as they approach speed cameras, rather than adjusting their overall speed, or that they slam on their brakes periodically as they remember to keep their speed down (between cameras, I guess)? I wonder if drivers will learn to adjust to this eventually, driving more smoothly at a lower speed, or if they will continue to correct their speed intermittently. I also wonder if, when gas prices go back up, drivers will learn more quickly to control speed in a more fuel-efficient manner?

I also wonder if the increase in rear-end accidents mentioned in the article is something that will decline as drivers learn not to expect the car in front to keep going through a light that's just turned red (I guess I'm making an assumption about the cause of these rear-end accidents; perhaps I'm incorrect).

It will be interesting to see in what ways drivers' behaviors adapt over time, and how long will it take, and what behaviors persist despite the change in conditions.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Julie - When you are approaching a camera, they slam on their brakes. After they pass the camera, they speed up exceptionally.

No indication that drivers are trying to slow down overall - more just trying to avoid a ticket.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Arizona is changing the way they do the cameras.. some will be on temporary tripods so that you don't know where they will be.

i have to say that i drove phoenix's freeways last month and was pleasantly surprised by the number of people driving the speed limit... something i hadn't come to expect in Phoenix metro...

and even more surprised by the number of family and friends there who warned me not to speed.. i was told they they were ticketing people going 5 miles over the speed limit...

imagine that...

it sure improved driving conditions there.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

hmmm...not entirely accurate.

When the "tripod" is in use, there are several warnings before you actually come to it.

And, even though friends and family will tell you to drive the speed limit (always a good idea), most people don't.

You get this flow of traffic that speeds (ridiculously) and then slams on their brakes when they come up to a camera (or tripod camera). Then, of course, speed back up.

Just beware if they bring speed cameras to Seattle. It does not deter speeders, but, IMO, makes driving more dangerous with the slamming of brakes. People will slam on their brakes down to 40 MPH on the freeway when they come up to those cameras.

Hopefully, though, we won't have to worry about that here!

Posted 3 years ago #
Moose Jaw
Member Profile

I'd support speed cameras but only if the technology also captured people driving in the left lane under the speed limit.

Wish they could also figure out a way to capture idiots texting while driving.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Moose Jaw- I support tickets for slow left lane drivers too!!!!

(Serious pet peeve of mine)

Posted 3 years ago #
Dunno
Member Profile

Lets face it. 35thsw has been out of control with
speeders in years gone by. Even me? Yeah I'm not always looking down at my mph. The new red light cameras and speed posters have helped a lot.
I've noticed a calming effect on 35th the past month. Plus the no turn in rush hour at 35th and
Avalon. BTW lost a friend at 35th and Thistle.

My next concern is Fauntleroy going to a two lane
road. 60% increase expected in the coming years
from ferry traffic on that road. More transit and
many more apts coming on line? Viaduct coming down. Glad I work weekends.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

i spent a fair amount of time on Arizona's freeways for 10 days last month and didn't see any evidence of slamming on the brakes...

what i saw was drivers abiding by the speed limit... even on the interstate to flagstaff which has been notorious for speeders...

but phoenix has always been a tough town to drive in...

you have the retirees..some well into their 90s driving very carefully.. and slowly.. mostly on city streets... and everyone else driving aggressively.. speeding around them making them even slower...

i now know just how insensitive it was.. but we used to call it prune dodge ball...

i suspect i would now be one of the prunes now since i generally drive the speed limit.. and no-one did :)

it was refreshing to drive in smoothly moving traffic...

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Well, there you go.... guess I was wrong.

Disregard my earlier posts. :)

Dunno - Working weekends definitely has it's advantages!

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

NewResdient..

not everything is adversarial...

you comment on what you see based on your experience and expectations.

i do the same.

for me, the driving conditions in phoenix were a huge improvement over my past experiences and my family and friends told me that was due to the cameras...

i don't know.. but it do know that i enjoyed driving there much more this time.

Posted 3 years ago #
BobLoblaw
Member Profile

For safety sake, I think the cameras have a chance to succeed. I agree that drivers should adjust. And a rear-ender is better than a T-bone most times. What peeves me is the $$ issue. If it's true that the camera companies make most of the $$ off these, then I'm disappointed. As much as it angers me that cities use these as cash cows, it angers me more that they simply give up the funds to these companies.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

BobLoblaw...

i agree with you.. i think we should request info about what Seattle's business relationship is with their company...

it's like giving to the telemarketers who call for the fireman or policeman fund... most of it goes to the telemarketing company.. that's why i donate directly.

I am all for improving safety but also think that especially in these times, that needs to go along with a great deal of fiscal responsibility.

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

JoB...prune dodgeball - lol...I had never heard of that...and, being that I'm a tad older than you...well, hopefully, am not a prune yet...I think it takes that Phoenix sun to help with that process? lolol....

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

JanS...

i used to think that the sun addled their brains... but i was much much younger then:)

i now realize that every trip out of the house is an event for them and they are taking time to enjoy the trip...

but it might be wise for the city to bow to reality and create senior lanes.. then everyone would be happy...

ok.. i am off too my own little adventure to the grocery and local produce mart:)

i hope those following me realize that i consider speed limits the top speed one should drive.. not the suggested minimum.. and that i brake for small children, seniors, pregnant ladies and all animals...

i try to avoid insects.. but one can only do so much:))))

i am trying to find it in my heart not to ruthlessly run down snakes... LOL... that may take a while...

Posted 3 years ago #
Julie
Member Profile

(Aww, JoB--keep in mind the snakes eat rats! Leave them alone for me, please?)

I agree it would be interesting to know the financial arrangements for the red light cameras in Seattle. But I'm not sure I have a problem with it even if the company is making more than the city. Maybe I can find out more detail... I'll try a bit, but don't want to spend hours on it.

After all, it does sound like overall, they're saving a bunch of money: notably insurance and medical, for which we all pay, even if indirectly. And we're always fussing about not having enough police to do their jobs--and this would free up police. I doubt the city would plunk for the cameras if they weren't cheaper than the police--but it's worth checking.

I don't see anything wrong with the red light camera companies making a great profit. If it saves society lives and money, and creates jobs--what's not to like?

Posted 3 years ago #
Julie
Member Profile

Okay, so here's what I turned up on a very quick search of the city website. Both news releases give monetary details about the pilot, so they may not apply to the current program. If I find out more, I'll post--but here's what I found:

City Council news releases:
8/17/2007 “The cost of 24 new cameras is approximately $1 million dollars. The revenue received from citations resulting from the six cameras at the four intersections currently under use is more than 2.5 times the cost of those cameras.”
1/2/2008 “The budget for the one-year project was $460,000. The city was billed approximately $3,500 per month for the services provided by each camera and this cost was covered by the $101 fines levied against each red light violation….The program issued 16,539 citations during the pilot, resulting in about $1.1 million in monetary penalties. “

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

thanks for the info Julie...

it looks like the light cameras more than paid for themselves.. it looks like they paid for a few officers too...

i think that is a win win.. unless of course you are speeding through a red light.. and then you might not think so..

maybe you could look at it this way..

being caught by the camera is a lot safer than being t-boned by someone you didn't see coming.

as for those snakes.. i promise to let any rat eating snake live to eat again ;->

I don't aim for rodents.. but i think about it a lot...

how many points for a rat???

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Are these the cameras that only take pictures of your license plate? I liked the old ones better where they parked them on the side of the road and they got a really great picture of you right when you realized you were busted. How can they give you a ticket unless they have a head shot of you from inside your car and can match it with your license?

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Everything you need to know about SPEED cameras - if they are ever brought here to WA:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811365190053401.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

"But critics point to research showing cameras can actually lead to more rear-end accidents because drivers often slam their brakes when they see signs warning them of cameras in the area."

Posted 3 years ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

Driving south bound on 35th at night I have noticed a flash and am guessing it is the camera taking a picture. I am confused by this because the two or three times this has happened, the light was clearly green as I went through the light. Either the light I was approaching was green, or it turned green and I cautiously proceeded through the light, not "gunning it" and flying though the intersection THE SECOND it turned green. (I admit, I haven't read all the links above so the following comment may be answered once I do...) Do the pictures taken include the color of the light as well as the license plate number?) If not, I feel some night surveillance in my future!

Posted 3 years ago #
Julie
Member Profile

I am fascinated by the outrage from citizens who apparently feel these devices infringe on their right to break the law.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

me too.. i am all for them.. for many reasons.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Did anyone read the article?

1) 14 year study shows "governments use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue", (not safety, as claimed).

2) For those that don't mind an added tax without benefit of vote, the complaint is the huge amount of money that goes to a third party each month in fees, as opposed to said government. Up to $5000 a month per camera.

3) The amount of side impact crashes reduced, is practically offset by the amount of rear impact crashes created.

4) Some people don't care for the simple act of being filmed and watched at every moment. These cameras are going up by the hundreds.

5) If this were about safety, not revenue, address the causes of most accidents. According to the NHTSA's own data, 2% of all traffic accidents are related to running a red light. What are we doing about the causes of 98% of traffic accidents?

I'm personally undecided. Some of these facts make me question the idea. Last I checked, it's not a crime, yet, to look at all sides. To presume the only people upset are those that want the right to break the law, is kind of rude IMO.

Posted 3 years ago #
alki_2008
Member Profile

It would be interesting to see a Venn diagram of posters thoughts about (1) speed limits, (2) leash laws, and (3) scoop laws. I'd hope that anyone chastising others that think some speed limits in the area are set too low for reasonableness would also keep their dogs on legal-sized leashes whenever their dogs are outside of an off-leash area and pick up all waste from their dogs.

On the original topic...it seems like the main point of the OP was how much of the fines were going to a private company, rather than the community itself.

Personally, I support red light cameras because there is never a time when going through a red light is 'safe' and drivers wouldn't 'react' to red light cameras in a way that endagers other drivers. However, I'm against speeding cameras because drivers tend to brake suddenly in the vicinity of cameras...which can contribute to accidents. And it's not just the speeders that slam on their brakes. I've seen plenty of people slam on their brakes when they see one of those speeding trap cars, even though they're already driving the speed limit and don't need to slow down to avoid a ticket.

Posted 3 years ago #
Julie
Member Profile

JT, I didn't mean to imply that only people who want to break the law were upset: the outraged people I was referring to were specifically those mentioned early in the article:

"But drivers caught by the unforgiving enforcement -- which mainly snared those who didn't come to a full stop before turning right on red -- exploded in anger."

In fact, later in the article, it mentions an Arizona engineer who has never received a ticket from these cameras who nevertheless objects to them.

(alki2008, here's my data point for your Venn diagram: I would like better enforcement for leash and scoop laws, in addition to improved traffic law enforcement. And how about if we add second-hand smoke laws in, too? I'd be curious to see your diagram. I don't volunteer to go back through past posts to cross-correlate to help you generate it, though!)

Posted 3 years ago #
alki_2008
Member Profile

Thanks Julie, I forgot about second-hand smoke. I haven't seen too many violations of that one myself. Of course, I also don't remember the distance people are supposed to be from windows/doorways...so maybe I have seen violations. At least the no smoking indoors seems to be enforced pretty darn well.

I don't think I'm up for doing the necessary diagram data accumulation either. ;)

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Julie, thank-you for clearing that up. I assumed. Very sorry. And I totally agree, there is some crazy out there. I think it said someone went after a camera with an axe as well. He may have bigger problems than a ticket.

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

i have to point out that being rear-ended is much less likely to kill anyone in either car than a side impact collision...

So if that was the only impact result... i would say ultimate safety is improved...

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

If rear-end collisions are up, regardless of side impact collisions data, how does that confirm safety is improved?

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

are rear-end collisions up, statistic-wise at these cameras? are there stats, numbers, or are you just playing devil's advocate...?

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

JanS - You obviously didn't read the article I posted that relates to this conversation.

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

probably not...are these statistics about the red light cameras in SEattle? or are they about speeding cams in AZ? It's just easier to ask...so we can all talk numbers and statistics :)

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I asked because the topic ws red light cams...about those people who run red lights, whether speeding or not...not the same as with "speed" cams....I don't think...?

Posted 3 years ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

I'm sure it's been said here, but to regurgitate that red light cameras don't promote speed safety concerns. They are nothing more than a legal way to generate revenue for the city.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Jiggers, I agree.

JanS - I TOTALLY understand not wanting to read an article. But, I can't figure out why you would comment on an article that you haven't (and don't want to) read.

No worries, I'm just still wondering how a rise in rear-end collisions is proof that safety is improving??

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I read it...red light cameras have nothing to do with speeding sometimes...that's why I was asking specifically about the statistics HERE IN SEATTLE re: the 24 cameras. I can be coming down 35th at Morgan, run the red light, at 30 mph. I'm not gonna speed up or slow down and then speed up again, so as to cause myself to be rear-ended. I'm a massage therapist...I treat too many people with whiplash :)

and that is why I asked for info on numbers HERE. The link/story you posted is about Schaumberg, IL...and people making illegal right turns on red, and getting caught. And it's about AZ, and speeding cams...red light cams and speeding cams are apples and oranges.

I don't need to know aobut AZ or Illinois..I ain't going there. But you said "If rear-end collisions are up, regardless of side impact collisions data, how does that confirm safety is improved? "

I asked "Are they truly up?" here in SEattle...are there numbers, statistics...it's a valid question, and has nothing to do with your article, which I HAVE read...

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Sorry, JanS, there were several different facets to this conversation. The article I shared verified a point I was trying to make regarding just ONE facet of the conversation.

Someone brought up the issue of speed cameras (which have been heavily installed in AZ) possibly coming to WA. The question arouse whether speed cameras were effective or not.

I noted (due to my lengthy time spent in AZ) that people slam their brakes on now when approaching a speed camera on the freeway. That observation was challenged and the statistics prove it is, in fact, true.

I'm still not sure how a rise in rear-end collisions reflects safety is improving though.

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

Red light cameras are possibly making things safer, as less people will chance those intersection while on red now. I know I'd rather stop than get a $100 plus ticket. Speeding cams...which aren't here yet...are a different animal, as you say. And a moot point for Washingtonians at this moment in time...

re:the slow people in the left lane. I live in the Admiral District, and make a left turn to get on my street, coming from downtown up the Admiral Hill, etc. I will admit that I do at times go maybe 5 miles over the speed limit while in the left lane...but if someone in front of me is going 30 (the speed limit), I, too slow down. But I have been followed too close on many occasions by people who think that the left lane means the sky's the limit regarding speed limit...when, in fact, it isn't...or it would be posted that way.

I used to work on Sunday's at Gilman Village in Issaquah, and coming home on I-90 was the same way, only more dangerous. To go where I needed to go, I had to be in the left lane or I would end up where I didn't want to be...and if I was going 10 miles over the posted speed limit, there were always people who wished they had a cow catcher to whisk me out of their way so they could go even faster..like 20 miles over the limit. I can see your point about too slow drivers in a way, but..the speed limit is just that, the limit, not the suggested minimum. What makes you all that peevish about the left lane?

We haven't had the Autobahn come to the US yet...let's hope it doesn't :)

Posted 3 years ago #
JoB
Member Profile

New Resident..

Have you read the front page of the West Seattle Blog the last couple of weeks?

There were two articles and pictures of side impact collisions from people running red lights.

The cars were badly damaged in the area where a driver or passenger would be sitting... and at least one of those cars rolled.

If you define safety as the personal safety of the people riding in the automobiles, then those pictures are graphic evidence of the difference in possible injury between being rear-ended and side-impact collisions.

While the number of accidents may not have decreased due to red light cameras... it is reasonable to assume that the injuries and death from collisions was reduced.

I haven't seen statistics that tabulate property damage either, but i would bet that total property damage from collisions at those intersections was less as well, since the majority of rear-end collisions would be likely to cause less far less total financial damage than a side impact collision... pretty much at any comparable speed.

It is possible that a low speed side impact collision would do less damage than a rear-end collision at the same speed if the car was older and did not have the newer bumpers that absorb low speed collisions without damage to the car or occupants.

But a discussion of the difference in damage between low speed rear-end and side impact collisions is probably not pertinent in this case since a driver traveling that slowly would be more likely to stop for the light or avoid the collision anyway...

It is possible that an increase in the number of rear-end collisions at an intersection when people actually stop for red lights would offset the number of collisions from those running red lights... no matter whether that intersection was in Illnois, Arizona or Washington.

but i think the number of collisions has more to do with insurance claims and manipulating statistics than actual public safety...

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Apples to oranges and anecdotal at best. Of course getting t-boned at just the right spot, at just the right speed, will cause more severe injuries than many rear-end collisions. There is a lot more to take into consideration, however.

What are the two speeds involved? What are the sizes of the vehicles involved? Is it a motorcycle hitting a new SUV with side impact air bags? How often is a car being hit at the door as opposed to the front or rear panel? Does the rear ended vehicle have a passenger not wearing a seat belt? What are the ages, height, weight, and health of the occupants? How many rear impacts equal the damage of one side impact? The scenarios are endless.

What is known, is the cameras are there to generate income. Studies in the above cited article bear that out. What is also known, is that there are more accidents at intersections with cameras.

Washington DC:

"The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.

But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.

Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making ANY difference in preventing injuries or collisions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

Key point, the cameras DO NOT reduce injury.

If any one would like to support this method of city revenue, they should by all means. But at least make your point for or against red-light cameras with facts, not with what sounds likely or probable.

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

well, whatever the numbers...don't take the law in your hands and run red lights...it's that simple. And...speeding isn't exactly cool, if you hurt yourself or, worse yet, someone else. Cams aside...it's all moot...we're adults and should use common sense.

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

Is someone advocating running red lights or speeding?

Posted 3 years ago #
Julie
Member Profile

Actually, JT, it looks to me that the jury's still out: the article cited in the OP states, "A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Safety Administration found that after installation of red-light cameras, right-angle or T-bone crashes dropped 28 percent, while rear-end crashes climbed 8 percent.

The researchers found that with property damage included, each site saw a $40,000 per year drop in damage."

So we appear to have contradictory results. Both studies are from 2005, though--so maybe since then we have more data that could clarify.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (an organization with a vested interest in reducing injury, death, and damage from auto accidents, as it's sponsored by insurance companies) has an interesting Q&A on red light cameras, including aggregate results of studies:

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html#

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

no one on here has advocated that...but the discussion brought up those speeders who speed, slam their brakes on,sometimes cause an accident, then speed up again..if I read some of the posts correctly.

and people are complaining about the red light cameras generating income..my answer to that is...don't run the red light, you don't generate income for them...seems simple enough to me ..

but that would be in a perfect world, huh...I was just speaking generally..about common sense...

Posted 3 years ago #
Anonymous
Member Profile

No, they were complaining about too much revenue going to the camera company instead of the city. They WANT the city to get more of the money.

Thanks Julie, I'll keep reading.

Posted 3 years ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I stand corrected.....nitey nite...

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^