"Red-light" Cameras

They have not ben proven to improve safety, as far as I know.

However, if you employ such a device I think that a large conspicuous sign stating that there is a red-light camera in use should be mandated.

I also believe that, that sign should be posted right next to the red light so that it is obvious by observation.

My rational is that if the sign is obvious to everyone then people will make a best effort to avoid running a red light knowing full well they will be fined if they do not.

It also differentiates the intent of the camera as one that attempts to stop infractions (and accidents) rather than act as a revenue mill for the township.

Um, we are talking about cameras at intersections? Or, are we talking about cameras in the red-light districts?

... Either way signs might be a good idea.

"If it is blatantly obvious that you will be fined if you run the light, you will use extraordinary care to avoid the infraction." The flaw I find with this comment is this: It will probably make me sound like "The Little Old Man From Pasadena", but I always drive carefully. I never run stoplights, I never roll through stop signs, I drive the speed limit... I do sometimes make a lane change without signaling. There is a small portion of my driving psyche that fears the retribution of being caught violating the traffic laws, but in general, that is just my driving style. I don't understand why the rest of society does not do as I do... obey the traffic laws. [Well, maybe I do understand: It makes people crazy! I have had someone call the 1-800-RAT-ME-OUT phone number painted on a company vehicle and complain I was going 65MPH on the highway (in a 65 zone). That guy finally passed me on an inside corner, on a bridge, with a double yellow centerline. ]

"The true purpose of this device should be promoting safety, not revenue." On this, I agree with you 100%. HOWEVER...

I checked Wikipedia for Traffic Signal and Red Light Camera. Whew! There are many, many views and opinions and studies and questionable conclusions and engineering flaws and... wow. NOBODY seems to agree on this issue. No wonder it is such a hot-button.

Several cities (that I've heard about, Lord only knows how many others) have reduced the yellow time to increase the number of infractions. Couple this with the lack of proven safety and I see little reason to support them.

Exactly as you said. I moved to another city and got a ticket because the yellow was very much shorter than what I was used to. I didn't want to slam on the brakes when it turned yellow and thought that I had time. I guess there's no standard "yellow" time.

The Amber time has been reduced to speed up the changing of the lights due to the increase in traffic.

While driving you MUST be prepared to stop when the amber light shows.

In many countries there is no "Amber" light, it goes to RED.

However in the USA your lights go Red to Green (no amber) while in the UK we go RED, RED/Amber, then Green.. warning of the change to green.

Imagine if it was Green you're going.... and Red you STOP! That would cause a few fender benders.

As for the lack of safety.. thats all down to the drivers. Maybe you would like to have our driving tests, in three parts, lasting several hours??

Referring back to my many trips to Traffic School in the late 1970s...We were told at that time that the yellow was set to correspond to the posted speed of that stretch of road. 1 second per 10 MPH. So a posted 30MPH was set for 3 seconds. A posted 45MPH was set for 4.5 seconds, etc. This was Orange County California, I have no idea if that was a local or national standard. I some what doubt the validity of what you're saying. I wouldn't put it past any local municipality to do sneaky things to raise revenue but that would actually cause a spike in accidents. People who would be used to a certain amount of time would be forced to either get the ticket or slam on their brakes. I could see more than a few chain reactions if they reprogrammed the lights as you suggest.

We could just post warning signs at all the entrance points to the city that says "Warning some stop lights are equiped with cameras to record violators." Then people would take that "extra caution" at every stop light in that city, that should improve safety. Or to save money on the signs entirely just print it on the back of your drivers licence ...... or in the drivers handbook ......or on birth certificates.

an extract from my previous post...

As for signs & notices.....I do remember that there are the statuary signs on the road side warning drivers of traffic lights ahead in the USA as there are here too! The highway code/rules of the road, state that you stop at a red light. Do you need further instructions?

The driver of the vehicle has passed a driving test,(a VERY extensive one in the UK) and therefore has displayed to the testing examiner that he or she not only knows how to control the vehicle (knows now to brake and stop at RED lights) but also has really good understanding & knowledge of the driving rules and regulations.

I agree with anonymus that there should be posted signs that there are cameras.

I'm sure that prevention by warning decreases the incudents of accidents.

It is important to remember that the camersa should always take 2 shots - one after the other - so as to be sure that the violater was still moving when the shot was taken.

Amen to that, brother! GA

I remeber you arguing about device in your car stopping make phone calls while driving, and how it was a breach of the 2nd or 3rd ammendment "freedom of speech" etc..

How about a device that will stop your car at red lights? would that be more effective than devices that stop you talking?

Actually, I'll go one up on that. How about a steel barrier that comes down or goes up as soon a the light turns from yellow to red.

After an initial... ermm.. breaking-in period for drivers... I wonder how many lives it would save. I'm thinking people would suddenly be very capable of understanding what a yellow light means. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't hit any barriers.

What real HARM can they really do? Has anyone ever been hurt from getting their picture taken? No, but they could hurt someone else by running the light.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think think they do much good other than generating revenue, but I fail to see how they can do any harm either. Don't run the light, but you didn't need a camera to tell you not to run that light.

Not sure why I even posted this... I guess I don't really care either way. I've never had one catch me, but I don't give them the opportunity either.

You wrote. "What real HARM can they really do? Has anyone ever been hurt from getting their picture taken? No..."

Well, that is not exactly true. There have been studies that show that the number of rear end collisions have gone up in some instances and have actually increased the number of accidents.

However, I would prefer being hit from the rear as opposed to being T-Boned any time. There is a lot more protective sheet meta l behind you than a door provides. That, and organs do better from deceleration from the rear or front than they do from the side where shear forces tend to lacerate internal arteries.

There have been studies that show that the number of rear end collisions have gone up in some instances and have actually increased the number of accidents.

I'm afraid this comes into the category of urban myth. There are no such studies. Exactly the same has been said of speed cameras in general and it is not true there either.

One of many studies in the USA supporting AH's (and others) statements.

This issue has been studied to death. Everyone that publishes seems to have an axe to grind; there are conflicting conclusions available to support just about every point of view or opinion.

3 second rule? I have to assume you don't drive on the 405 or 5 too much in LA. The 3 second rule has been changed. You're allowed 3 feet @ 70MPH! If you don't maintain that there is a possibility the drivers around you are armed

No... bit far to come.

I know exactly how they drive.. was on the freeways around San Fran years ago, exactly the same.

3 second rule, over there its more like the 3 foot rule.

How about a slightly different approach?

Lets film these intersections and see whether there is a fundamental problem with traffic flow.

I do know of a town that opted to use lagging left turn signals and eliminated red light running

Lets film these intersections and see whether there is a fundamental problem with traffic flow.

Well your countrymen have filmed the intersections and this is the results....

many thanks to Utube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3nO78LMVRM

And...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2JFL1Sk21Y&feature=related

(and this one is from Russia.. but its good TV)

fundamental problem is.. bad driving??

having watched the videos.. what is the cost of vehicle insurance in the US???

Maybe EVEN higher insurance costs for law breakers, that might slow them down, make some of the bleaters happy as they can't say the "state" is trying to make money off them, it will go towards paying for the constant stream of ambulances that are required to attend these RTA's, as you pay for your medical.. and if I think about it, it might help in other ways too!! Any suggestions??

Red light cameras are designed for two purposes, 1) to make lots of revenue for a city, and 2) to make revenue for the camera company. Do you think Cities like Houston care about how many are injured in accidents where cars run red lights -----sorry friends, all Houston cares about is the money that the red light cameras generate. The more money they take in, the more money politicans put in their pockets. A more helpful suggestion to stop red-light runners is to put colunt-down meters up that show how many seconds it will be before the lights change. At least the driver can cage the distance he will travel when the countdown is showing on the meter.

Most drivers do not intend to run red lights, part of the blame for red-light runners is that the lights are never set to change at the same rate of speed. I have been driving when the light only allowed 2 cars to pass through the intersection and then other times when the same light allowed 5 or 6 cars to pass through. The cause of accidents due to running red lights must be shared in part with the City, after all they are the ones who won't do the maintance on the roads or stop lights, each of which affects the driver.

I try to drive safely but to be honest, I see just as many cops run stop signs and red lights as the average driver. One time I set up my camera by a stop sign to catch the cop on the block who normally doesn't stop ----------- I guess because he thought he had the authority to run the stop sign ----------- only to be told I wasn't allowed to film the police. I have chased them out of my driveway, where they were would hide, and that also didn't set well with the Police Dept.

No, I really don't think red light cameras are necessary. I think those caught running red light (habitual abusers) should have their drivers license revoked for a period of 5 years. If they are caught without a license, due to suspension, they should server 5 years behind bars at hard labor.

Karl in Houston, Texas

There a many pro and con comments both here and in many other places. Some are very good points, some are somewhat weak. But, most reasonable people would agree that the main reason the towns and their private company partners are installing cameras is to generate revenue.

Law enforcement for profit scares me. How far will it go and what is next? How many laws and/or procedures could be altered by the cities, law enforcement departments and courts in order to profit from the changes?

I have never gotten a red light ticket from an officer or a machine. With my normal driving habits I probably never will. But several news stories from the past pop into my mind every time I hear of more red light cameras.

1) Fifteen or twenty years ago there was a big "zero tolerance for drugs" fad sweeping lawmakers. I heard many stories of law enforcement buying big new squad cars, remodeling the station and giving raises to the officers due to seizing cars, trucks and semi tractor trailer rigs for offenses as small as a single pot cigarette. I don't approve of drugs and I especially don't approve of drugs while driving. But, any reasonable person would agree that a trucker forfeiting a $125,000+ rig and load for a minor offense is not justice but an example of a law enforcement lottery.

2) There was a man in California who had a large expensive house on a very large expensive lot. The pilot in the Sheriff Department helicopter thought that some of the plants on the property were the wrong shade of green so they planned a raid (no need to investigate first). They burst into the house in the middle of the night. The homeowner woke up, reached for the nightstand and was shot to death by the officers. The plants that were the wrong color of green were totally legal. There were no drugs on the property. There were no drugs in the house. The man's home was big and expensive and it would have helped the budget when forfeited and sold at the sheriff's sale. The "enforcement for profit" fad was considered to be the cause of the homeowner's death.

3) It was probably around 15 years ago that one of the major news shows (60 minutes?, 20/20?) did a story about the way the drug forfeiture laws were being abused in Volusia County Florida and one of the western Gulf states. The routine was simple and captured by several dash board cameras. After making a traffic stop for something minor the officer would ask "you don't mind if I look inside your car, do you?" In many cases the driver would not object. If the officer found much money then the law allowed him/her to assume that the money was from drugs and they would seize the money. If the driver wanted the money back they could pay a lawyer about $5000 and go to court to attempt to prove that they had not done anything wrong. If the driver did not go through this legal process then the government and law enforcement agencies would keep the money. If the driver did pay approximately $5000 in attorney fees and won then they would only get 75% of the money back. The local governments and law enforcement agencies were able to keep 25% of the money they unjustly seized to cover their expenses associated with taking the money. It is reasonable to assume that they did get some drug money. But the TV shows and newspaper articles covered stories of many innocent people that lost their money. Due to the cost of the attorneys and the 75% rule it was only worth trying to recover your money if more than $7000 or $8000 was taken. If a smaller amount of money was taken it was cheaper to just let the police keep the money. It was embarrassing to live in a state that did this. This not only was enforcement for profit but it was often done when the person did nothing wrong.

4) I have heard several reports of some towns changing the length of their yellow lights in order to increase the profits from their red light cameras. I don't have the proof to support the claims but I don't like the idea of yellow light timers being an important financial tool for local government.

This isn't exactly the same thing but I recall years ago when legalizing the lottery was being pushed. If passed the schools would have new equipment and the students would be some of the best prepared in the country. The state would have lots of wonderful retirement homes and the older citizens would be well taken care of. If passed every special interest group might get all the things they wanted and the world would be a wonderful place. A year or two after passing the general fund provided less support to education and the lottery was now a mandatory funding source. A year or two later the states gambling gaming was down and we were told that the schools might have to close early that year and it was our fault because we were not gambling enough. That somewhat backfired and now the lottery is just a tax with a little lipstick on it. This has been reported to be a tax on the poor since (per the reports) they are most likely to think that the only way they can have a better life is to "win one".

Is there a point to this rambling? Yes. When a person, corporation or government agency smells money and is encouraged to go get it then we start down a slippery path. If that money flows in a stable manner then it can easily become part of the normal revenue stream. Then, if something changes there will be the need to increase the revenue from the stream. In Florida we were told (for a very short period of time) that the education funding problems were our fault because we were not gambling enough. I can easily see the government funding problems being the fault of the police departments because they are not writing enough red light camera tickets. Guess what will happen then. What will happen if we don't have enough people breaking the law?

Yeah, I'm really torn on this. I wanna say leave the cameras and just STOP RUNNING LIGHTS! But then again, if you're gonna put a sign advertising the camera... why not just use the "THIS HOUSE IS PROTECTED BY SMITH & WESSON" sticker theory? Most people with those stickers don't own a gun at all. Or the fake alarm stickers. Let's just put a sign warning about cameras at a lot more intersections and we don't need the cameras! But if we're going to do that, may as well put in cameras anyway, and let towns get extra revenue. What's the big problem with towns earning more revenue from law breakers? Stop breaking the &$$#@ law and you won't get punished.

After my year in England, I really grew to appreciate the roundabout. I'm sure there have been studies done. Anyone know of any that use a direct correlation comparing stop lights vs roundabouts? Not only for traffic flow, but also safety? I'm too lazy to research it at the moment.

we now got traffic lights on roundabout too!!

The roundabout is generally reckoned to be an effective way of safely controlling traffic flows and causes less delay than traffic lights. Its use is spreading from the UK to Europe as well as to the US. However, they do take up a lot of space, and may impossible to install in dense urban areas. In the UK there is also the mini-roundabout, with a slightly raised centre area of only 1 - 4m diameter, which can be a viable alternative, though better suited for 3-armed than 4 armed junctions. The right of way on such a mini-roundabout is the same as on a conventional roundabout. In the US this might be the same as the "Neighborhood Traffic Circle".

They put them up in an effort to reduce certain types of accidents?

I thought they were to generate revenue..

I think a 5-6 second yellow light would have the same if not better results in reducing such accidents.

..fortunately I haven't been snared by one.. they are all over the place..

Simple solution: legislate a reasonable minimum yellow. We already have the countdown. The yellow is shortened to increase revenue, but rearenders increase after people learn of the ticket costs. And it would be a good defense for slamming on the brakes and getting a new car from the dummy behind you.

MUTCD minimum yellow interval is 3 seconds with a max of 6

The idea they would increase the risk of accidents is specious and pure nonsense. I was almost t-boned turning on a left green arrow by some cowboy going through on pure red. The presence of those cameras keep me within 5 MPH of the limit and to think twice about how yellow is the yellow light. They do a lot of good and absolutley no harm!

Lou Bindner

I think there is plenty of documented evidence to show that the number of accidents have risen (at least at some locations).

Here is but one website with 5 scholarly studies that do not support your claim.

RLC Accident Studies

However, as I said before, you are much better protected with a rear-end collision than you are with a side impact into a relatively thin door with little or no energy absorbing properties.

I have had one accident where I stopped for a light when it was yellow (about to transition to red) and the girl behind me speed up thinking I was going to speed through the the intersection, too. I can see how accidents like these happen.

I have had one accident where I stopped for a light when it was yellow (about to transition to red) and the girl behind me speed up thinking I was going to speed through the the intersection, too. I can see how accidents like these happen.

From my previous post #20.. If you hit someone from behind as they stop, then you were too close, if you hit someone from behind as they stop for traffic lights you not only were to close but you were not travelling at a speed that would give you ample time and preparation to stop in a controlled manner when the lights change. And it can be proven that you were not prepared to stop if the traffic lights changed.

Your post supports my point does it not?

You wrote, "If you hit someone from behind as they stop, then you were too close,..."

Well, that statement is a little too general to be considered a valid claim.

If your brakes fail, you could make that claim after you impact another vehicle, but the root cause is failed brakes even though proximity played a role.

In the case of the accident I cited, the lady that struck me did so because she was watching beyond the intersection and not watching me, the car in front of her. Again, you could state that she was too close, but the root problem was she was not fully cognizant of the theater. Instead of hitting the brakes (as she should have) she actually tried to speed up.

None of those cases mean that you should not observe sound following distances, but they do illustrate that the assignable causes for accidents can often be more complex than a simple 3-second rule.

not only were to close but you were not travelling at a speed that would give you ample time and preparation to stop in a controlled manner when the lights change.

Start over and re-read everything I wrote.

I was struck in the rear (had stopped) by another vehicle that did not see I had stopped.

It was her fault for failing to stop, not me.

Took a look at the link and the studies contained therein...I quote

from the study:

"The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals."

"There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure."

Yes, it may be the case because the dumb a$res will not obey the traffic regulations, and you mirrored that point by your rear end shunt cos the girl driving behind you thought you were going to shoot thru a RED light.

Now the question here is are they stupid, colour blind, not passed their driving test, don't know or understand the rules of the road.. or is it ALL of the above?

Education and HEAVY penalties are the way to educate, enforce and to obtain compliance with the law.

The more that is said on this subject, the more it becomes apparent there are bad drivers, really bad drivers and those who are bl00dy dangerous. There is no excuse for stupidity, blatant disregard for the rules of the road and other road users & their safety, and anyone who says Red light cameras are a waste of time should take a long hard look at the guilty party who fractures the law each and every time they run a red light. Get them off the road and we'll ALL be safer.

One last point.. after a road traffic accident at a junction or anywhere else, who cleans up the glass, fuel, bit of metal, blood, human tissue, who directs the traffic, who put the body in the bag, how has to tell the relatives their loved ones are dead after someone run a red light? The emergency service.. and who pays them? And y'all bitch about a $40 fine for running a RED light?

from the LAPD website...

The fine for a red light violation captured by the red light camera system is $446.00.

wasn't sure of the fine, a WAG on my part.. thanks for the info..

$446.. not enough!

Touched a nerve?

If the studies are true and the number of accidents goes up after installing RLCs, are you still in favor of them? Why?

If the problem gets worse instead of better what do you do, put more cameras in?

If your answer is yes, you could run for political office in this country. ;-)

If the studies are true and the number of accidents goes up after installing RLCs, are you still in favor of them? Why?

Stupidity is the simple answer, lack of care while driving, the inner belief that they won't get caught, lack of knowledge of the traffic regulations, they've been running that red light for years, they were driving to close to the car in front, they didn't expect the car in front to stop at a red light... the list could go on....

In London they have a "Yellow Box" junction at traffic lights. The yellow box can ONLY be entered if your exit is clear, and you of course have a green light to proceed. The number of people caught on video & camera was in the thousands in the first few months, but DROPPED dramatically thereafter.But there are the persistent offenders who are caught and their defence is.. "Oh that's what the yellow box is for!!"

The studies if conducted now might reveal a drop in offenders... people are quick to catch on! Especially when its their money!

You did not answer my question:

If the studies are true and the number of accidents goes up after installing RLCs, are you still in favor of them? Why?

You went on a red herring rant that I don't have an argument with, in principle, but that is not what I had asked you.

Clearly you score well as a politician. :-)

However, you have not addressed the fundamental question of if the studies proved true, that the number of accidents increases with red light cameras, would you still advocate their use and installation?

The question of why is meant to be if they are proven to cause more accidents than stop, why would you keep installing them?

Again, the argument isn't about the carnage and mishaps people cause, but the policies implemented to curb them.

I believe I have answered the question why I would install more, they WILL prevent the violation of the rule, "You do not run a RED light".

I think for the sake of debate, you maybe, are not trying understanding (maybe devils advocate??) why they should be there in the first place and as they are being installed, why certain law breakers are causing the accidents, when ordinary law abiding drivers actually STOP for a RED light as you did.

You and other normal drivers have been/were rear-ended because the dull SOB who ran into them/you because that perpetrator was either not in control of the vehicle, has no understanding of the rules or just doesn't give a rats ar$e about the rules or lights.

Again I say, if the studies you presented from Australia were conducted now, what would the results be?

Although you regarded my side issue about "Yellow Box Junctions" in the UK, the message and moral of that story is a simple one and very applicable to any situation, if you aggressively go looking for law breakers, you are going to find them and they will break the rules consistently until the message is received and understood, "we will not tolerate it".. and that's why RLC's should be on EVERY light controlled junction, if there has been accidents and/or loss of life.

It doesn't matter if its speed cameras, RLC's, yellow box junctions or any other type of method the authorities use to keep order on the roads, and that's what they are doing, "keeping order", not trying to make criminals out of the everyday citizen. The "un-law abiding driver" can do that on his or her own... Do the police ask him or her to drive through a red light, or speed or lane change without indicating, or driving without using their safety belt? No... they do not!

So if I understand you, you now think the policies are flawed... so lets throw the road users rule book away, while we're at it lets throw away the 10 commandments too.. thou shall not kill, shall we start with that one?

The policies, in any country maybe flawed, but its all we got. A thin line and open to abuse, but it does keep the huge majority on the straight and narrow and free from fines and injury.

you will find AH will consistently argue against the rule of law when he feels it conflicts with his Liberty

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/69562#newcomments

Liberty.. the right to have someone crashing to you becasue they don't or won't obey the rules of the road, the right to have a fireman cut you from your car, the right to have an ambulance take you to ER, the right to free speech.. oh you can't speak becasue the accident you were in means you are on life support, the right to a body bag, the right to have your loved ones arrange your funneral, the right to be a organ donor.

AH, stop being such a wally by taking the moral high ground, you know it can't work, but you are entitled to your opinion... the value of which is.. well thats another topic

I just think that for someone that has a leg wound, putting a tourniquet on the neck is the wrong thing to do if it does not produce the desired results.

From your writings not only would you put the tourniquet on the neck, once it was clear that the leg was still gushing blood you would keep tightening and tightening.

Metaphors aside, I feel:

1. It is morally wrong for the primary use of RLCs as revenue generation.

2. If a corrective action proves to be counterproductive or makes the situation worse, than a new course of action is in order.

I'm sure everyone agrees that your logic is sound, AH. But what many of us don't agree with is your statement that it does not produce the desired results. You know as well as I do, that statistics and studies can be found to support both sides of this debate, if you look for them. That's often the case with polar subjects like this. If this wasn't the case, there would be no debate at all, and it would be one way or the other.

But for the record... I disagree with your opinion on this subject.

IMHO, your metaphors... Na!

you opinion, well that I can take, and your opinion is as it is, but I think you are STILL missing the point, or for the purpose of debate you will not acknowledge the points, but you like the logic.

so lets take YOUR logic a little further.

you say..."It is morally wrong for the primary use of RLCs as revenue generation.

So lets NOT fine people, let put them in jail, and lets not put cameras on junction lets put policemen there who have the power to stop and arrest whoever they see (or think is) running red lights.

Now we've already had the points made that while the police are in attendance EVERYONE become a law abiding citizen.. the minute the cops disappear for coffee and doughnuts, it's business as usual.

While you stand opposed to RCL, you do not offer any alternative, as there is none that is effective, as cheap to run and in the long run WILL have the desired results.

I too remember your posts on devices to stop you using your phone while driving.. how about a device that will stop you driving thro red lights?

Running red lights has to stop.... I've covered all the ways that you can influence it, give me another??

You wrote, "Now we've already had the points made that while the police are in attendance EVERYONE become a law abiding citizen."

Yup, and that is why I said right at the beginning that as long as big obvious signs are posted that can't be missed, stating that this is a RLC intersection, you will get nearly 100% compliance (and little revenue generation) 100% of the time.

Yes we agree, but my point is why MORE signage?

You, me and hopefully everyone else who has a driving permit/licence has passed the basic driving examination, and that includes the rules of the road, so now you are saying they need to signs to remind then about the rules!

As GarthH said.. "its a stupidity tax!". In the UK we paint the speed cameras AND RLC's BRIGHT yellow and they are placed out in the open, but still people run the lights.

I guess if we could figure out why, we'd be on a winner.. but until then....

My point is that if the message is broadcasted conspicuously enough before one enters the intersection that the rate of compliance would go up.

In the UK it may be that the yellow painted cameras have become "background" over time because the brain no longer sees it as obvious.

Eventually even oddities sticking out in front of our face become ordinary and we just get acclimated to the status quo.

Then you are talking about drivers that do not drive they just point their vehicle in the general direction they wish to go.

Driving is an art, requiring total concentration, (cell phone topic) if the driver is not aware of the traffic signs, then he or she is driving WITHOUT due care and attention, and should not drive.

I have in my wallet a driving licence that will permit me to drive a car, mini van, semi and motor bike, all of which I had to sit and pass a detailed driving test. I also joined the Association of Advanced Drivers, and for almost 12 months was tutored on the finer points of driving, and then sat a 5 hours practical driving exam with the Advanced Police driving instructors to test me to the limit, driving though country lanes, residential areas, small towns, large cities and Motorways/freeways, on top of that there was also a theory paper. The highlight of the training was a ride in the back of a police patrol car, going to a accident....The training showed me how bad other peoples driving really is.

Your point here is weak, only distracts from the obvious, that to drive a vehicle requires a certain amount of skill and concentration, if you don't have it or won't obey the rules, then get off the road as you are a danger to yourself and others

No, its not because as you think, they have tuned out the Yellow camera's, it because they know it there, and think they can beat the lights. You can see people speed up as they approach the lights, then are going to fast to stop.

Good or bad driving?

So lets NOT fine people, let put them in jail, and lets not put cameras on junction lets put policemen there who have the power to stop and arrest whoever they see (or think is) running red lights.

You know that is foolish as well as a fiscally irresponsible alternative.

..."It is morally wrong for the primary use of RLCs as revenue generation.

The point AH is making is exactly that, but if its there to promote safety, that is something totally different.

You wrote, "So lets NOT fine people, let put them in jail..."

Well, there are good reasons why that policy would fail.

First, we don't have the jail or prison space. We are already overcrowded and are releasing prisoners.

Second, if you take that approach about law breaking on the roads, why should it be different for other types of infractions? Obviously, we need more jails and prisons.

However, we already have crossed 2 million US prisoners incarcerated and the trend has been going up and that was 10 years ago!

Somehow this tells me that the problem needs to be fixed another way. First, we should define the problem and understand what has changed over the decades.

Are we simply dumping more people in jail or what? It would seem to me that we have a social pathology among us.

While you rail against me for my moral judgement and opinions, I submit to you that much of the root cause (as seen in the graph) is due precisely to a lack of morals and principles. I also submit to you that it is my lowly opinion that this systemic problem has just been passed on from generation to generation and continues to spiral down unabated - despite more laws, less liberty, and greater safety at the hands of a nanny state.

They say you can't legislate morality, but that hasn't stopped the legislative steamroller, only dumped higher octane fuel into the tank so as to throttle up even more.

My apologies if my metaphors and facts cloud the emotional arguments here.

To both you and Phoenix911

Yes putting people in jail for running a red light is a bit OTT (over the top), but my point as stated "What's the alternative"?

In days gone by our forefathers, did just that. You would be hung by the neck until dead for stealing, be hung drawn and quartered for many other petty crimes, flogged in public for adultery, but we have moved past that.

Crime and punishment do not go hand in hand.

The crime, running red lights, the aftermath of fracturing this law, worse case.. someone's death, the punishment... $446. In the US you have vehicular manslaughter, so what does that get you? 5 to 10 years or more? So there's a way that people will end up in prison. running from the police in a vehicle, another way.

The aftermath of any accident is gut retching... I've seen a few over the years, and while people are left to break the law in relation to the road, then the risk factor goes up each and every time that they do fracture that particular law, and it's only a matter of time before they run into your vehicle, as is the case you, AH.

How did you feel after the accident? Mad, wanting blood, thinking that this woman should not be allowed to drive, wanting her to be punished severely?

So should we allow these people to run red light, knowing that they will, if not now, but soon injure or kill someone, or do we try to protect the general population against these people. We try to protect people, how do we do it? Install cameras! Does it raise money? You bet it does! What's the money used for? To clean up after the mess of the accident!

I think that's fair!

Only the consummate law breakers have something to fear from RLC's, those who drive obeying the laws of the road, fear nothing!

for your information in the UK annual accident costs per accident..

Type of accident.....Fatal: Total.£1,323,880, Serious: total £154,110, Slight: total £15,380

The total includes, lost of output, medical and human. Take from the ABD (Association of British Drivers) http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/What_Does_a_Road_Accident_Cost.htm

The AAA states the following...

"US car accident cost $164.2 billion. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/economy/AAA_study/

So who pays??

You wrote, "How did you feel after the accident? Mad, wanting blood, thinking that this woman should not be allowed to drive, wanting her to be punished severely?"

My first thought, the very first thought, was anyone hurt? That included my passenger and the driver of the other car.

My first actions were, check my passenger, to make the scene safe for everyone, check the other driver, and then I directed traffic until the police arrived.

As it turned out there were no serious injuries, thankfully. My car was totaled. I don't know if the Honda that hit me was or not. However, cars can be replaced, people can not.

Oh, the cost of accidents was not what I asked.

I specifically asked if the number of incidents on the UK roads have been rising, falling or steady state over the last 4 decades.

Good, no-one was hurt from the accident. but I asked how did you feel AFTER the accident? Checking other people, etc, as you described is what any sane and normal person would have done. So who's avoid answering questions?

I inform you of costs as your point on the fines imposed for RLC's are for the city, but is it not the city that cleans up after you? Your car was a right off you said, who towed it away? who cleaned the road of all the debris?.. not you! So who pays? Not you!

To answer your question

Speeding (% exceeding speed limit): 1993 - 56% of all measured cars on Motorways/freeways. 2000 - 55% of all measured cars on Motorways/freeways.

Speeding, the overal drop is attributed to the increase in traffic, however the National Statistics Office note the following...

speeding is widespread when roads are not congested, particularly on motorways, dual carriageways and urban roads. In 2000, over half of cars on non-urban motorways and dual carriageways exceeded the speed limit and two-thirds of cars exceeded the 30 mile an hour limit on urban/build up area roads

The UK Department of Transport has published its 2009 road accident figures for the number of people killed and injured on the UK's roads.

The main figures were all down on the 2008 figures with a total of 222,146 casualties of ALL severities, down 4% on 2008. Those killed on the roads were down 12% on the year before and those seriously injured down 5% at 24,690. There was also a 4% drop in the number people suffering slight personal injury from road accidents. The number of fatalities fell for all types of road user, with the biggest fall being among road users, 16% down on the previous year.

The figures are even more impressive when compared to the average in 1994-98. Here the number killed in 2009 was 38% down, while the number of children killed or seriously injured fell by 61%. This is despite an estimated increase in traffic of 15% compared to 1994-98.

Drink driving: In 2009 there were just under 12,000 reported casualties, which occurred when someone was driving over the legal alcohol limit while the provisional number of people killed in drink drive accidents was 380, slightly down on the 2008 figure. The current figure means that deaths due to drink-driving are now less than a quarter of the 1,640 recorded in 1979.

Contributory factors to road accidents: Failing to look properly while driving was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was present in 38% of all accidents reported to the police in 2009. In 36% of accidents which involved a fatality, the most commonly reported contributory factor was loss of control. Exceeding the speed limit was reported in 5% of accidents but when taken together with driving too fast for the conditions, it was present in 13% of all accidents and 27% of all fatalities. In 58% of accidents where a pedestrian was killed or seriously injured, the pedestrian failing to look properly was reported.

Survey data on road accidents: This takes statistics from the DfT and puts them together with those from the National Travel Survey and the British Crime Survey to enable an estimation of all accidents to take place. It believes that the total number, including those not reported to the police, is in the region of 700,000, though that may be a slight overestimation of the true number.

So it would seem that the UK government's effort to reduce road traffic accidents is working, with the use of speed cameras, RLC, speed bumps in build up areas, traffic calming devices, heavy fines, custodial sentences, police authority to impound vehicles, random vehicles stops and a whole bags of other good stuff in their arsenal designed to catch the law breakers.. NOT your average driver who's never had a ticket

You wrote, "but I asked how did you feel AFTER the accident? Checking other people, etc, as you described is what any sane and normal person would have done."

Well I was a little ticked at the insurance company with my car, but a short letter from my attorney fixed that.

Was I ever mad after the accident? No, I don't think so. She did the wrong thing, but it was an accident, not an act of war.

I'd like to think any sane person would feel the same way.

whatever we say and discuss here, and I've enjoyed this debate, the fact of the matter is... and this was the parting comment of a narrator of a UK police accident TV program today, covering vehicle accidents from all over the world and the UK....

"I hope the images you have seen will prevent you all from getting in your car and committing an anti-social act by breaking the law".

Putting the offender in jail I believe is not cost effective, or reasonable.

As you put it In days gone by, thats how they did it..... Yes, also so was public humiliation in the town square which I feel is more appropriate and cost effective..

1. It is morally wrong for the primary use of RLCs as revenue generation.

I agree, if that becomes the case. It opens the door to speed traps. Where even though the signs maybe visible, it was in a very difficult place for proper view.

Its hard to discribe except that the best place to hide something is out in the open.

That is why, when a law is past, such as now in Wisconsin, you can get pull you over if they spot that you do not have your seat belt on and ticket you, before, they could only ticket you for that if you had been pulled over for a different offense such as speeding and ticket you.

The advertisement on the radio for this now law is, because that are pushing for safe driving, not revenue enhancement.

the argument isn't about the carnage and mishaps people cause, but the policies implemented to curb them.

It is about the carnage and loss of life etc, because if there wasn't accidents due to red light runners, then you would not need the polices in place to prevent the accidents in the first place.. Yes?

You wrote, "It is about the carnage and loss of life etc, because if there wasn't accidents due to red light runners, then you would not need the polices in place to prevent the accidents in the first place.. Yes?"

I like the logic, but the accident, injury, and death rates for autos has been declining for decades and is at an all time low, despite more miles traveled and more cars on the road. This has been happening before the RLCs.

At least this is true in the US. What about the UK? What has been the trend in safety over the last 3 or 4 decades?

Interesting, hows gun control going over there?

so that would make RLC's a stupidity tax..

we should probably add a nice billboard at every RLC intersection, with a running total of the fines collected for violations at that location

I've received exactly 4 traffic tickets in 30+ years on the road. And I have to say that each of those times, I was doing something wrong. Three times blatantly, the other one was subject to a technicality. Hey, if a speed limit is too slow for a stretch of road... whatever; it's still posted. If a camera catches me a little over the line with the light red... well, I was one of the 0.01% of the drivers who used that intersection that day whose judgement wasn't good enough to get him through a simple traffic light properly.

Y'all quit whining cuz you got caught. A 3-color traffic signal is a pretty friggin simple concept. Err on the side of caution, and be responsible. Simple. What else do you want? A 5-color traffic light, like on a drag strip? It's not a perfect system. But when you have to deal with those that just GOTTA be the last ones through that yellow light (just to be stopped anyway, at he next light), there is no way to make it perfect, because we have to rely on people doing the right thing.

It's irrelevant whether cameras make it safer, or limit accidents. The traffic lights are there. We should be able to figure out how a 3-color system works. When they were first introduced, they only had two colors, with a delay in switching to the intersecting road. But because drivers didn't have enough good judgement to make that work, they added a CAUTION light in between colors that was saying "Hey! Pay attention! I'm about to CHANGE COLORS!" At that point you have a decision to make. Do you go through, or don't you? Make all the excuses you want, but if you can't make the right decision, based on all that is going on around you, you're just not a very good driver.

Here's an idea. How about if we all have one day nationwide, where we don't let a single traffic camera take a picture? Oh wait, that would require us all to be safe, and stop trying to BEAT THE LIGHT If you don't want a speeding ticket DON'T SPEED!

Give me the authority and a stipend and I will sit at a cirtain intersection, make note and generate $1,500 per hour in tickets. A simple rule to make us all safer. Put the coffee down and OPERATE the motor-vehicle.

how about 1,500 tickets an hour AT $1,500 per ticket??

The answer to the problem is simple. Get rid of all road signs and traffic signals. Believe it or not this has been proposed, it has even been tried, and it is working.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

This is the solution to several problems actually. It is being shown in many studies of many things that if you increase the safety features of something people will behave more recklessly. To the point that mandatory bike helmet laws have increased injuries.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

I think I read in Freakanomics that the advent of ABS brakes increased the number of rear end collisions. People tailgated more often thinking that their new fangled brakes would save them.

The more equipment they supply to sports professionals the more frequent and serious are the injuries.

This is all just proof of the old axiom that as soon as you make something idiot-proof, the world invents a better idiot.

So never mind the cameras, get rid of the stop lights.

There's is alot of truth from that reinforced by studies....^{damn not I have to look for the studies.} And an example of this is the banking on onramps. the degree of angle was increase (such as cloverleaf type on ramps.^{poor design to begin with}) and the results were cars were taking the banked angle at higher speeds.

While reading another of my favorite web site I came across this same topic.

Their statistics seem to contradict what most studies quoted here said.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/16/seeing-red-why-traffic-light-cameras-are-a-good-solution-to-intersection-accidents/

I don't believe that RLC's cause an increase in accidents, at least here in Arizona.

I've read that the opposite is true, at least according to the local police departments I've read about here.

I KNOW RLC's do not generate money for Arizona cities, I've seen the numbers. They were NEVER intended to generate revenue, they were intended to save lives.

You wrote, "They were NEVER intended to generate revenue, they were intended to save lives."

How do they mark the intersections to let you know they have a RLC?

The intersections are marked by a bright flash every time the camera is triggered by a red light runner.

I'll take a picture of one, if you've never seen one. It's fairly obvious what they are. The selected intersections are, obviously "high traffic" intersections with high repeat traffic.

The city I live in employs roadside speeding vans that take your picture at 11MPH over the posted limit. Those are announced by a roadside sign, deployed by the driver, prior to enforcement. They are moved most days to new locations.

The intersections don't move.

Yup. It's more about revenue. Here is why... If they really wanted to keep people from running the light they would broadcast it before the person would even consider going through it rather than waiting until the deed is done. Stupid way to do it.

Here they use signs at the intersection. However, I would like to see them posted right next to the actual stop light so that they are obvious to observation.

Nope, if it were about revenue, don't you think the cities involved would make money?

Traffic cameras not profitable for cities across Arizona

Austin Texas reports losses, too, as do most other cities.

As opposed to manned traffic lights that pull over violators.

RLC may still lose money, but maybe not as much as having a traffic cop posted.

See my post # 1.

If it was about safety which scenario is better?

A: Policeman standing in full view of all motorists at intersection with clipboard ready to write tickets.

B: Policeman hiding behind bushes ready to write tickets.

Which intersection (A or B) will likely write more tickets?

Which intersection will have the higher level of compliance?

I submit to you that intersection B will likely result in a higher number of written tickets because people will not see the cop. Intersection A will result in people slowing down and being much more cautious because the threat of a ticket is very obvious. People will be on their best behavior.

Intersection B will have a higher rate of red light infractions and logically, more accidents.

Which strategy do you employ? If you want revenue you use intersection B. If safety is the number 1 concern, intersection A is the obvious choice.

Therefore, even though Arizona cites lose money, I'll bet the commercial outfits that run them (Redflex )are making great profits and hiding the cameras make even more profit. This is about revenue first. Safety is just cited as a benefit.

See my post #90. The cameras are NOT HIDDEN. Anyone who drives through the intersection for the second time is acutely aware of the camera's presence.

And, the discussion is about cities that employ the cameras making money, which, even you can't deny they don't.

Redflex is making a profit, or they wouldn't be doing it. I'd like to think that the city's motivation would be traffic safety.

Cop standing on corner, or camera IN PLAIN VIEW, are both deterrents. The cameras never hide.

As you said, "for the second time".

I'm off to take photos of the cameras.

It's always a pleasure to debate with you, even when you're wrong.

You wrote, "It's always a pleasure to debate with you, even when you're wrong."

Same here! ;-)

Look forward to pictures. :-)