Top traffic cameras bring in $1 million PER WEEK
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Sacramento (2024): "The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office managed the program. Sheriff’s office spokesperson Amar Gandhi told KCRA 3 the program was meant to be cost-neutral, but it cost the department $898,000 per year, which was higher than the money generated from violation tickets. On Thursday, the sheriff’s office could not provide a specific number of tickets given or a total revenue amount from tickets given." San Diego has reinstalled red light cameras. Three Iowa cities stopped issuing speed camera citations because the Iowa legislature passed a restrictive new law (effective July 1, 2024) and they have to figure out how to comply with it. This is the same legislature that passed a law removing restrictions on child labor (this law conflicts with federal law) and a ban on abortions after 6 weeks. Raleigh (2024): ""It is effective to an extent. It does help reduce angle crashes [which are more dangerous], but at the same time, it has a tendency to increase rear-end crashes [which are less dangerous]," said Sean Driskill, the program coordinator for the City of Raleigh's Vision Zero program." |
Anonymous
Generally, people want enforcement aimed at offenders. Except when they are the offenders. Don’t be an offender and you won’t have to get all upset when you get caught. |
Anonymous
we've spent a massive amount of money, time and energy on traffic safety measures and it's hard to tell what difference any of it has made. |
Anonymous
Your numbers are foolish. Here are the actual numbers of traffic deaths in DC. Year 2004: 45 2005: 49 2006: 43 2007: 54 2008: 39 2009: 33 2010: 25 2011: 32 2012: 19 2013: 29 2014: 26 2015: 26 2016: 28 2017: 30 2018: 36 2019: 27 2020: 37 2021: 40 2022: 35 2023: 52 https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/traffic-data Your argument (such as it is) is also foolish. Normal people look at the numbers of deaths and say, Wow, this is bad, we need to do more. |
Anonymous
Oh please the stop sign cameras in quiet neighborhoods are stupid. People sit at the stop sign for like three seconds just to make sure they don’t get a ticket. It isn’t for safety. These aren’t major intersections. There is no cross walk where pedestrians walk. They are just a money grab. |
Anonymous
Which cameras? |
Anonymous
| I speed more ever since the cameras were installed. I have lived in this area a long time, and there used to be roads where there would be a real threat of speed enforcement by police officers but it was unpredictable because the police could be camped out anyplace along the road. Now I know exactly where to slow down and I can speed freely everywhere else because police no longer enforce traffic laws. |
Anonymous
TIL that increasing rear-end crashes is somehow acceptable and municipalities should install cameras even if they lose money on them. Now do the 50+ places in California that have gotten rid of them. |
Anonymous
Are you saying that poor people are less able to adhere to laws? |
Anonymous
Yes exactly. Perfect explanation. It's not helping safety jn the slightest. |
Anonymous
| I can only imagine it must hurt the people that live there more. There are differences in rush hour for cars. Why not make stop sign fees restricted to rush hour pedestrian and vehicle times rather than low traffic times if they serve a purpose some od the day? There also must be some way to make them less picky. |
Anonymous
| What do they do with all of this money? How can the police say their budgets are hurting with programs like this? |
Anonymous
+1 Focus on people blowing through lights and stop signs. Stop fining people for moving at a fraction of a second still at the sign or for stopping a few inches over the line at the light. I hate traffic camera enforcement because it does not differentiate between minor technical infractions like this and major safety issues the way most police would in weighing if they pull you over. |
Anonymous
Stop at a stop sign means stop at a stop sign. It's a major safety issue when people don't stop at stop signs. People need to get in the habit of stopping at stop signs. |
Anonymous
Some studies have found that red-light cameras increase rear-end crashes but decrease front-into-side and injury crashes. (Other studies have not found an increase in rear-end crashes.) Yes, that's acceptable - if you're a person who believes that people are more important than property. Effectiveness of cameras Red light safety cameras have been shown to reduce both red light violations and crashes. A series of IIHS studies in different communities found that red light violations are reduced significantly with cameras. Institute studies in Oxnard, California, and Fairfax, Virginia, reported reductions in red light violation rates of about 40% after the introduction of red light safety cameras (Retting et al., 1999; Retting et al., 1999). In addition to the decrease in red light running at camera-equipped sites, the effect carried over to nearby signalized intersections not equipped with cameras. A more recent IIHS study in Arlington, Va., also found significant reductions in red light violations at camera intersections one year after ticketing began (McCartt & Hu, 2014). These reductions were greater the more time had passed since the light turned red, when violations are more likely to result in crashes. Violations occurring at least a half second after the light turned red were 39% less likely than would have been expected without cameras. Violations occurring at least 1 second after were 48% less likely, and the odds of a violation occurring at least 1.5 seconds into the red phase fell 86%. When it comes to crash reductions, an IIHS study comparing large cities with red light safety cameras to those without found the devices reduced the fatal red light running crash rate by 21% and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14% (Hu & Cicchino, 2017). Previous research in Oxnard, California, found significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light safety cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29% (Retting & Kyrychenko, 2002). Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — at these intersections declined by 32% overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries fell 68%. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international public health organization, reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light safety camera effectiveness (Aeron-Thomas & Hess, 2005). Based on the most rigorous studies, there was an estimated 13%-29% reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24% reduction in right-angle injury crashes. An updated review by the Campbell Collaboration included 28 additional controlled before-and-after studies. It found a 20% reduction in all injury crashes and a 29% reduction in right-angle injury crashes (Cohn et al., 2020). Some studies have reported that while red light safety cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. However, such crashes tend to be much less severe than front-into-side crashes, so the net effect is positive. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light safety camera programs in seven cities (Council et al., 2005). It found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25% while rear-end collisions increased by 15%. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million in the seven communities. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end injury crashes (Aeron-Thomas & Hess, 2005; Cohn et al., 2020). When camera programs are discontinued, crash rates go up. An IIHS study compared large cities that turned off red light safety cameras with those with continuous camera programs. In 14 cities that shut down their programs during 2010-14, the fatal red light running crash rate was 30% higher than would have been expected if they had left the cameras on. The rate of fatal crashes at signalized intersections was 16% higher (Hu & Cicchino, 2017). A study in Houston, which turned off red light safety cameras in 2011, found that the camera deactivation was associated with a 23% increase in right-angle red light running crashes at the intersections that previously had cameras (Ko et al., 2017). https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running |