It's time to put the brakes on red-light cameras | Hacker News Reader

It's time to put the brakes on red-light cameras

latimes.com

41 pointscwan47 comments

I think the statistics are misleading. In cases where the number of "accidents at intersections" fell, I'd like to know whether the number of accidents between the crosswalks fell, while the number of accidents leading up to the intersection rose. I have personally witnessed people either speeding up to beat the camera or slamming on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket. I'd bet that the number of rear-end accidents on approach to camera-monitored intersections increased.

Statistics are always misleading, especially when politics are involved.

I'd love to see a detailed breakdown of the types of accidents too. I know that I have slammed on my brakes when a light turns yellow, or the person in front of me does, and we narrowly avoid a collision.

I think it'd also be interesting to know the geography of the area leading up to the light. One in my hometown is at the top of a steep hill, so you pretty much have to be accelerating rather hard to even get to the light. There's an area where you can be in when it switches to yellow where you HAVE to go or destroy your brakes, but it puts you pretty solidly in the middle of the intersection.

You bet right:

http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/PubDetails.aspx?PubNo=05-R21

A-ha!

Further the data show that the cameras are correlated with a definite decrease in crashes that are directly attributable to red light running, a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes. More time is needed to determine whether the severity of the eliminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes.

Total number of accidents is only a part of the story. I would fully expect minor rear-ending types of accidents to increase, possibly substantially. On the flip side I would expect the deadly T-boning variety to decrease. The unproven assumption being that minor accidents increase, serious accidents decline.

I would expect the deadly T-boning variety to decrease

I think this variety of accident happens when the light has been red for quite some time (i.e. more than a few seconds). The people who get tickets (from what I've seen personally, and from talking to police) are people who just missed the yellow light by a few tenths of a second. The latter group are the ones a traffic light cameras are affecting (the ones alert enough to slam on the brakes or speed up). People who run stale red lights (the ones who cause major accidents) are either oblivious to the fact the light is red at all (e.g. drunk drivers), or they don't care (e.g. high speed pursuits).

You overestimate people's ability to time lights. I have absolutely seen people accelerate to "catch a yellow", and then fall into the red by a substantial period of time. Where the only safety from an accident is that the crossing traffic was aware of them.

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

In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.10

Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit.

Exactly what I said, though I got the requisite downvote from the came-from-Reddit "red light cameras are just money grabs!" ignorant crowd. Though I suppose the IIHS -- the foremost authority on traffic safety -- has less sway than various anecdotes.

I have absolutely seen people accelerate to "catch a yellow", and then fall into the red by a substantial period of time

People accelerating to catch red lights are usually within the last 100 feet before the crosswalk. At 35mph and accelerating (~50 feet per second), assuming the light turned yellow immediately at the 100 foot mark and lasted for 1 second, the driver should be able to reach the intersection within the first second of the red light. The other drivers would take about 0.5 seconds to react and then accelerate from a stop into the intersection (remember that the law says you have to wait for the intersection to clear before proceeding), so they would likely not be in danger. It would be close, but usually these aren't the situations that cause deadly accidents. When the light has been red for a few seconds or more and someone runs it, there is a much greater chance for a deadly accident.

From the report:

"We found that the program cannot conclusively demonstrate that it has reduced traffic collisions, thereby increasing public safety."

It goes on to recommend that data collection be improved to answer the question of what kinds of collisions and violations are being observed, in greater detail.

"red-light violators busted by the cameras have to pay a $446 citation"

Holy Sh!7 that is big fine for sneaking through a red light.

Here in Boston you have to be careful not to get rear ended when you are the first in line to stop at a red light. And don't even think of stopping on yellow -- that earned me a horn blast and finger as they zoomed around me when I first moved here.

It is not just my imagination -- as part of finishing the big dig a temporary light was mis-timed to give a green left turn arrow to one direction while at the same time the opposite direction had green ball. This went un-noticed for 3 months, everyone just assumed the other people were going through on red.

> green ball

This is the first time I've heard this term; is it common to the Northeast, or where you're from, or what?

I might have heard it before -- I was trying to distinguish from any kind of green arrow.

It's the technical name for a solid indication. I've never heard it used in common parlance but that's how it's referred to in e.g. the USDOT Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Anywhere in the US, if you have MA plates other drivers will give you a wide berth!

I am one of those victims. Not only paid $550 and another 8hrs of my life trying to deal with it in the court unsuccessfully. All for not coming to a complete stop before taking the right turn. Live and learn :)

Game theory at its best. Red light cameras are a lose-lose scenario, if you're in the wrong and fight it, you lose money and time, if you're in the right and fight it, you lose time, if you just don't fight it, you just lose money. There's no way to be involved with red light cameras and not be penalized.

In what way are you a victim? You ran a red light. Have you any clue what kind of accident that creates. I'm sure you were a tenth of a second late, so didn't endanger anyone, right?

Well, I have been first-hand crossing an intersection with someone ignoring the red light. It's not fun :-(

You're not alone. I thought this claim to be a victim was ridiculous, too. After all, "stopping at a red light" is standard driver's manual material, along with notes on being cautious about taking a right there, considering in this situation, you are the last to have the right of way.

I have noticed that Internet threads about driving are generally useless, full of ignorance and pride. Folks think they know how to drive, and they do not want to be told they are wrong.

I never figured a camera can tell if you stop on red when turning right? That seems like it would require advanced AI. Is that really what happened to you?

   And don't even think of stopping on yellow -- that earned 
   me a horn blast and finger as they zoomed around me when I 
   first moved here.

I avoid responding favorably to threats. If they want to break the law, that is between the cops and them. Also, I try to avoid braking suddenly. If I am stopping at a soon-to-be red light, my tailgaters are aware of it.

Change starts with one person.

I don't think he meant it as a threat -- he was genuinely annoyed at my blatant disregard for local customs.

And don't think the cops will make any effort to correct this. Just yesterday I sat looking at a green light and watched a cop ignore two people go through a full red light. I guess he knows there is no way the charge would be upheld. A green light is purely just advisory in Boston, be sure to look both ways also.

The interesting thing about this anecdote is that the cops, according to their own accounts, actually have the power to choose their battles. If it is a slow day, and they have to meet some kind of quota, they are much more likely to catch those infractions. I have seen examples like yours, and I have also seen cops suddenly pop through the intersection towards red light runners.

Basically, whatever culture has developed, the action is still against the law -- not to mention reckless! -- and the cops can choose to enforce it.

I have seen cops going 10 MPH over speed limit on city streets without their lights on, but that does not mean I can do the same.

Now I may not like every law out there, but I can definitely see (and have personally experienced!) where there is danger in people not stopping at red lights or making sudden maneuvers in order to rush a yellow. I think this is a law I can support, and this lax culture that creates a higher incidence of "accidents" is not something I can support, partially because I personally do not want to be someone else's "accident".

Really, I am responding because your words suggest you are joining and assisting in this insanity, and I just wanted to let you know that not everyone approves of it. Things can change. You just have to want to change them.

Having out of state plates seems to help. My rental car has NY plates, that seems to reduce expectations that I'll run a yellow anywhere in Boston.

Which basically means, I only experience honked annoyance about 2-3 times a week on average.

The blatant disregard for posted speed limits in my corner of MA? Even with police cars parked on the side of the road? Yeah, that I just don't get.

I have taken to just smiling and waving when that happens * . It may not help, but it sure makes me feel better.

* -it happens about once a month, even though I only drive about 2 hours a week

On a somewhat related note to this story, there's a section of Route 50 on your way westbound into Washington DC where there is a speed camera set to 35mph about a mile after the road switches from being 65mph. It's pretty hilarious to still be driving around 50mph, and then simultaneously have everyone slam their breaks on, go 35 for about 200ft, and then speed back up to 50.

I'd love to see some hidden no-penalty speed cameras before/after marked ones to record how effective they are at traffic calming, rather than simply causing people to slow down specifically where they know the camera is.

I still can't believe that there isn't some sort of standard time for a yellow light. I live in Chicago, and the yellows are extremely short. When we drive up to the suburbs to see my girlfriend's family, I am shocked that the light stays yellow for what seems like an eternity. I think I remember reading an article about cities changing the timing on lights to eek even more revenue out of the red light cameras.

I assumed that the cost to the city was mostly of the startup variety, namely installation and associated tasks. This would mean that in the future, it could be a revenue generator. But it turns out that it's running at a loss, annually. From the report itself:

2008: 2.3M revenue, 3.8M costs (1.5M loss) 2009: 3.0M revenue, 4M costs (1M loss)

The bulk of the cost is "vendor contract cost" which I believe means ongoing support, and appears to be on top of the initial investment.

It appears adding more cameras would only compound the losses.

(disclaimer: I do not read reports like this for a living; interpret my analysis at your own risk)

I believe another 'cost' is that the vendor gets a cut of payment (a certain percentage). Warning: that's what I've read in the past.

Which sounds pretty damn shifty, but if I were selling a traffic monitoring system I'd probably try to get some profit sharing in the contract.

> more cameras would only compound the losses

There's volume efficiencies to consider. Typically the vendor processes the images, mails citations, maintains equipment, provides court testimoney does everything except sign citations (which in most jurisdictions must be done by a sworn peace officer).

In Portland Oregon they are now reducing the yellow times in order to increase red light camera revenue. Somebody needs to put a stop to this madness before too many people die.

States and cities are looking for anyway to increase revenue right now. Expect to see more shortening of yellow times and increased law enforcement where fines can be levied.

The thing that I have always disliked about red light cameras is that it removes what I feel is the deterrent effect that a police officer has when others see a car pulled over. People slow down when they see a police car with its lights on (well, maybe not in LA, but in a lot of places, people do), and if they see it often enough in the same locations, their likelihood to speed or go through a red light is going to go down. With a red light camera, you have none of that.

In Boulder, CO they have a few red light cameras and huge signs before each intersection warning drivers that they are there. It still didn't stop the idiot next to me from running the light. I saw the flash from the cameras as he went through. I guess the point is that you'll always have idiots even with some sort of active deterrent.

If they care about safety, they need to lengthen the yellow lights rather than make them illegally short. http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni... just lists 6 cities that have illegally short lights, but I've seen enough in Long Beach to know it happens more often than reported.

They really spent $2.5M on 32 cameras?

The city, meanwhile, has to pay the contractor for the red-light system, the salaries of police and transportation officials who monitor the program, and a Superior Court fee to benefit court reporters

I'm guessing they assign one officer from each police station whose jurisdiction includes a camera to review the images (they weed out images of police cars, firetrucks, and ambulances). These officers are probably the ones who go to court if you choose to fight the ticket. At $50k/year, and assuming two cameras per jurisdiction, you're looking at $1.6 million in salary alone over a two year period.

The governmental entities around Houston claim that they make the driver pay (police, city bus, school bus, garbage, etc.):

http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/11066653/detail.ht...

That's great! I don't think that happens here in California. Apparently these tickets are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver, and they are considered administrative violations, not moving violations. So if a Los Angeles city vehicle got a ticket, the city would be liable for the fine.

Working with the city government of LA (long ago) opened my eyes to how rampant bribes, kickbacks and the rest of corruption we associate with small third-world countries is in the USA.

The main difference being it's kept to a higher level (top gov officials and the rich/corporations) here in the land of the free.

Red light cameras are in the same category as software patents: possibly a good idea in theory, but doomed to failure and abuse when implemented by actual humans.

Only government could lose money on something like this. They should just have a private company set it up, and make the companies bid on the right to operate it.

I think in most places municipal governments did just that. Unfortunately, one of the problems with setting it up that way is that in many states there isn't much bite behind the tickets. If you don't pay, nothing happens.

I think the ultimate answer is to convert stoplights to circles. I've heard they're safer and more efficient.

Why the downvote? You don't like traffic circles?

Safer for cars maybe, but more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and slower for busses. The last thing we need is more incentive to drive and worse facilities for sustainable transportation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com