Reply to Top traffic cameras bring in $1 million PER WEEK

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Top traffic cameras bring in $1 million PER WEEK"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]the worst thing about the traffic cameras is not that they're racist or that they prey on the poor (they are and they do). it's that they cite so many people for trivial offenses. I'm talking about the stop sign cameras here. It's not enough to stop at a stop sign and the ticket itself says you're going 0.0 mph. you have to come to a complete stop and stay stopped for more than a couple seconds or you get a ticket. that's not a standard we subject anyone to the road else to. [/quote]

[b]A whole bunch of cities have been getting rid of red light/stop sign cameras.[/b]

Someone should start a ballot referendum to scrap them. [/quote]

Name them.[/quote]

Sacramento: https://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-ends-red-light-camera-system-drivers-react/60206739

San Diego: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2013/02/01/san-diego-drops-red-light-cameras/

60 localities in California, in fact: https://www.sgvtribune.com/2014/01/21/red-light-cameras-being-stopped-across-southern-california-country/

Three Iowa cities: https://who13.com/news/speed-cameras-across-the-state-are-off-while-police-comply-with-new-law/

Raleigh: https://abc11.com/red-light-cameras-raleigh-driving-traffic/14520958/

[/quote]

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."

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[i]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).[/i]

https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics