Engineering360: "The Red Light Traffic Camera Debate"

Regardless of whether there is a camera at the intersection or not, the thing that would virtually eliminate all 'red light' accidents is for all drivers to LOOK before entering the intersection.

I am shocked at the number of people that I see who just zoom into the intersection when the light turns green with nary a glance in either direction. Darwin is still busy working.

As a long time motorcyclist, I have been conditioned to look, every time because when you are on two wheels, even a minor fender bender is a big thing.

Why no mention of the manufacturers of these systems who are actually contracted to install and MANAGE these systems and get a percentage of revenues collected from each "infraction", only to find that many citations are fraudulent?

There have been convictions for this behavior.

Hooker

It is mentioned...

"The corruption charges stem from the practice of privatizing enforcement to third-party vendors, some with the authority to issue tickets. A 2016 Arizona case involving a red light camera vendor led to guilty verdicts for bribery and fraud."

Ooops, you're right. My skimming the article must've been more like skipping a stone on water.

Sorry.

There have also been discovery of a reduction in yellow light periods at red light camera ticketing operations managed by private for profit corporations.

The result is more revenue for the municipality, more money for the corporation and more injuries and accidents for the citizens.

Why would awareness of red light cameras lead to increased hard braking, if the yellow period were sufficiently long?

I'm not sure, but I think the reasoning is that people see the sign as they are approaching the intersection and have second thoughts about trying to run that yellow light and have to stop fast - or speed up to make sure they make it before it turns red.

That is a less nefarious reason that traffic cameras might make intersections more dangerous, but it is none the less a possible result.

Maybe both are true. Now you've got people trying to make quick decisions and actions with a shorter amount of time to make that decision. That's a recipe for disaster.

I think these cameras should only be used to provide evidence AFTER an incidence "on the ground" to resolve conflicts, not to issue tickets void of any problems on the ground.

There were too many times when automatic lights failed to detect my presence (motorcycle or otherwise) and skipped giving me a green-light. I'd have to wait until another vehicle pulled in behind me for them to be detected so both of us would be given a green-light. When no other traffic is around, or other safe/unusual, circumstances allow, tickets should not be issued.

Tickets should only be issued when a problem "on the ground" results from the "violation". Drivers should not have to learn the "programming" of the automatic system to avoid tickets. But, the automatic system should enhance our driving experience. Humans should remain the judge, not robots/AI. Let's not abdicate/out-source our lives to outside of our control. It's our lives, and only we can live them.

Radarsigns has an interesting pdf. Radar signs sells stationary and mobile radar warning signs. The pdf file is a scientific study on the brain waves of drivers. Radar signs / The Basics of Brain Waves. RS_.pdf / a scientific study on he aspects of radar signs by a company that sells radar signs.

An article in police officers quarterly, Using radar speed signs to help solve budget and manpower issues. August 9-2016 . Special segment on ROI.

We have had traffic light cameras in the UK for years at known accident black spots. They have proven useful. In the UK, if caught, it's treated like a speeding fine. Be warned.

I have a question about this. How do they know who is driving the car, or does the ticket just get issued to the person the car is registered to? My wife got a ticket for going through a red light camera and the ticket came to me since the car is registered in my name. I had not been driving in the location where the violation occurred, so I knew it wasn't me and did not want my insurance to go up because of it. This is why they are treated as non-moving violations in the US, so that doesn't happen. I got a non-moving violation fine, so it didn't really matter who the driver was. If I had loaned the car to a non-family member I would have had to go after them for the money if I wanted to, but it would have been my responsibility to pay the fine. It seems much messier if it's actually a moving violation that can cause your insurance costs to increase or for you to get points on your license. Not sure if the US system translates to the UK or not.

Some people have gotten out of camera tickets by proving they were not in the area at the time the ticket was snapped.

Apparently the fees charged by the companies that install and manage these cameras can be significant. In the town next to mine they had red light cameras up for a while (with much controversy over how accurate and legal they were), but then the city got sued by the county school board over them. Turned out that state law requires the city to give a percentage of all revenues to the schools. The cameras quickly came down when the city calculated that it could not afford to pay the management company and the schools - the two group's percentage demands added up to more than 100%.